IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6186 of 2011 Date of Decision: April 07, 2011 Dharampal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure P-16) passed by Collector/ Additional Deputy Commissioner, Development, Fatehgarh Sahib; and Order dated 11.6.2010 (Annexure P-18) passed by Director, Rural Development & Panchayats Department, Punjab [exercising powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961]. CWP No.6186 of 2011 [2] 2. The appellate authority in appeal filed by the petitioner in context of a case under Section 11(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), as applicable to Punjab, instituted at the instance of petitioner, has taken decision in the following terms:- “After perusing the appeal of the appellant, pleas of the respondent taken in the lower court and record on the file, I have come to the conclusion that as per Patta Nama dated 17.5.2003 this land measuring 1 Acre 5 Kanal was taken on lease, by the appellant for one year for Rs.1690/-, and as per Patta Nama dated 27.4.2009 this land measuring 1 Acre 5 Kanal was taken on lease, by the appellant for one year for Rs.1725/- and appellant has signed the same as Chakotedar. On 3.5.2005, appellant has again taken this land on lease for Rs.2700/- for one year, as is clear from the Patta Nama, on which signatures of the appellant are there. Proceedings of the Auction, which has been produced by the Panchayat, in the lower court, on which also, signatures of the appellant are there. As per law Chakotedar cannot claim ownership. In the Jamabandies also, appellant’s name or her father’s name is mentioned as Gair Marusi in the column of cultivation and in column No.9, different-different amounts of Chakota are mentioned. Appellant has not produced any such record, in the lower court, from which his continuous possession from 26.1.1950 can be proved. In the year 2006-07, Gram Panchayat had given this land on auction to Sh. Inder Singh. Land in dispute vest in the Gram Panchayat. There is no merit in the appeal. Therefore appeal is being dismissed and the orders of the lower court are kept intact.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the fact, that the petitioner had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, cannot be disproved. 4. In view of the above, I am of the view that the authorities under the Act have not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit CWP No.6186 of 2011 [3] filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act. 5. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 6. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 07, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?