L.P.A. No. 1748 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1748 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 Wassan Singh .....APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR --- Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.17065 of 2007) filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 27.5.2004 and 6.9.2006 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Kapurthala and the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) exercising the powers of the Commissioner, respectively, has been dismissed. Vide the aforesaid order, the petition filed by the appellant under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, claiming ownership of 21 Kanals of land was dismissed by the Collector and the said order was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner after L.P.A. No. 1748 of 2011 (O&M) -2- coming to the conclusion that the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat and the appellant was inducted on the land as a lessee and after the expiry of the lease period, his possession on the land in dispute was illegal and unauthorized. Undisputedly, the appellant is a displaced person from Pakistan. He is neither the proprietor in the village nor at any point was allotted the land in dispute as a displaced person. The appellant is claiming the ownership of the land in dispute merely on the basis of his illegal and unauthorized occupation. It is also undisputed position that the land in dispute was Shamilat Deh and originally it was owned by the Mohammedans, who had migrated to Pakistan. Such land, according to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur Vs. Malvinder Singh, AIR 1985 SC 1394, vests in the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that at one point of time the Director, Consolidation had allowed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 filed by the proprietors and corrected the revenue record. In our opinion, the said order of the Director, Consolidation will not give any assistance to the appellant as in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Nurpur Vs. State of Punjab, (SC) 1997(2) PLR 694 and Gram Panchayat, Village, Sidh Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (SC) 1997 (3) (Civil) 491, the Director, Consolidation has no jurisdiction in exercise of power under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 to decide whether the land vests in the Gram L.P.A. No. 1748 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Panchayat or not. A finding of fact has been recorded by the authorities that the appellant had taken the land on lease and now he is claiming the ownership on the same land, which he cannot because the lessee of the land cannot dispute the title of the lessor. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 19, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) vkg JUDGE