IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7214 of 2011 Date of Decision: April 27, 2011 Harjinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.S. Salar, 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 20.11.2007 (Annexure P-10) and Order dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure P-12). 2. Order Annexure P-10 has been passed by the prescribed authority under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), as applicable to Punjab. The petition of the petitioner has been CWP No.7214 of 2011 [2] dismissed. Petitioner carried an appeal that has been dismissed vide Order Annexure P-12. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land was ‘Banjar Qadim’ and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/ petitioner is one of the proprietors of the village and Gram Panchayat is not owner of the land. 4. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel has been fair to the Court in admitting the facts as narrated in Order Annexure P-10, which are extracted as below:- “On perusal of the record and hearing the Ld. Counsel for both the parties, I have reached to the conclusion that the application has failed to show that he is in possession of the land mentioned in the subject for the last 50 years because in the Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 Ex.P3, Jamabandi for the year 1963-64 Ex.P9, Jamabandi for the year 1969-70 Ex.P10, Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 Ex.P11, Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 Ex.P12, Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 Ex.P13. The name of the petitioner does not find any mention. In the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ex.P14, Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 Ex.P15, Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 Ex.P16 there is entry showing the applicant as lessee of the land in dispute. The presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the revenue record. Besides, the Gram Panchayat has produced Ex.RW1/B, the lease register for the year 2003 as their documentary evidence, according to which the father of the petitioner Sh. Amrik Singh had taken this land on lease. He cannot challenge the ownership of Gram Panchayat being its lessee.” 6. Perusal of the above extracted portion shows that revenue record for the period 1952-53 till the year 2003 did not indicate the CWP No.7214 of 2011 [3] petitioner as the person owner in possession of the land. Rather, in revenue record for the years 1989-90, 1994-95 and 1999-2000, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner/ petitioner has been shown as lessee on the land in dispute. Even the Lease Register has been produced in the year 2003 to show that Amrik Singh, father of the petitioner, had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat. 7. It is the petitioner who approached the authority for a declaration that he is owner in possession of the land. The onus to prove thus, was on the petitioner. Petitioner having failed to prove the said fact, no ground for judicially review the orders passed by the authorities is made out. Orders are based on relevant material. Reasons assigned are also legally tenable. 8. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 9. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 27, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?