C.W.P. No. 21777 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21777 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 23.11.2011 Tirath Singh .....Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat and another .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 8.7.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner whereby after setting aside the order dated 28.6.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector, the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from Khasra No. 56 which is 'ghair mumkin pond' and vests in the Gram Panchayat. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is in possession of Khasra No. 27//19(2-8) and 27/22(6-0) and his possession is not on the land bearing Khasra No. 56 which is 'ghair mumkin pond.' This contention was also raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority but it was not accepted because this fact was not mentioned by the petitioner when he filed reply to the application filed by the Gram Panchayat for C.W.P. No. 21777 of 2011 2 eviction of the petitioner. Copy of reply is annexed as Annexure P-2, where in para-4 the petitioner states that construction exists on his land. But in the reply he has not mentioned that his construction exists in Khasra No. 27//19 (2-8) and 27//22(6-0). By noticing this fact, the Commissioner has rejected the contention of the petitioner and allowed the appeal of the Gram Panchayat and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. Before this Court, learned counsel argued that in this case without getting the land demarcated the order of ejectment has been passed, therefore, the same is not sustainable. This contention cannot be accepted because before the Collector the petitioner never raised the issue that his construction does not exists in Khasra No. 56 but actually exist in the above said two khasra numbers. In absence of any such pleadings, there was no need of demarcation. Even otherwise the order of ejectment has been passed against the petitioner from the land comprising in Khasra No. 56 and he will be ejected from the said land only. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 23.11.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE