IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 2199 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 05, 2011 Paramjit Singh and another. …Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the appellants. Paramjeet Singh, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against judgment dated 02.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Commissioner has been upheld. The brief facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appellants, which was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 25.08.2005 (Annexure P/11). The Commissioner vide order dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P/12) had set aside the order of the Collector and had allowed the application of the Gram Panchayat, under Section 7 of the Act and ordered the eviction of the appellants. LPA No.2199 of 2011 (O&M) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned order, as well as, orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. The finding of fact has been recorded by the Commissioner that the order of the Collector is erroneous as Khasra No. 11//3/3(0-5) was mortgaged by the Gram Panchayat. The land in dispute was in possession of Ram Rakha and his legal heirs including Smt. Preeto, as Gair Maurusi. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the appellants are the legal heirs of Smt. Preeto, who was protected as per order dated 26.08.1987 passed in application under Section 11 of the Act by Smt. Preeto. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that the appellants are related to Smt. Preeto in any manner. In the jamabandi for the year 1961-62 Smt. Preeto has been shown to be the widow of Ram Rakha; whereas, appellant No.1-Paramjit Singh is the son of Jaimal Singh and appellant No.2-Gurpreet Singh is the son of Jagir Singh. As such, they are not related to Smt. Preeto in any manner. Similarly, Ranjit Singh son of Bawa Singh son of Nissa Ram is also not proved to be related to Smt. Preeto. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that Smt. Preeto had remarried with Bawa Singh and as a result of that, the appellants have come into possession of the land in question. He has placed reliance on the pedigree table (Annexure P/6). From Annexure P/6 also, the relationship of the appellants with Smt. Preeto is not established. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is without merit, hence rejected. 2 LPA No.2199 of 2011 (O&M) Admittedly, as per the revenue record, the possession was of Ram Rakha. Smt. Preeto is the widow of said Ram Rakha, that too was as Gair Marusi, as is clear from the jamabandi for the year 1961-62. As such, the tenant cannot challenge the title of his landlord. Since, after appreciation of the revenue record, a finding of fact had been recorded by the Commissioner which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 05, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkd JUDGE 3