IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8172 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 04, 2011 Dwarka .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for respondent No.7. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to conduct an enquiry and protect possession of the petitioner. Said prayer has been made in context of land comprised in Khewat/ Khata No.319/433 and Khasra No.36//10 (2-12), 12(7-12), 13(8-0) CWP No.8172 of 2008 [2] in revenue estate Pandwala, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali. The petitioner claims himself to be a poor and landless tenant over the land which vests in the proprietors of the village. 2. On a query of the Court to the effect that if the prayer is justified, it would be a dispute between two private parties viz. the proprietors of the village and the petitioner, learned counsel contends that suit for permanent injunction was filed which however was withdrawn and the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.6, Gram Panchayat, contends that the petition is mischievous and based on concealment of material facts, and also mis-statement of facts. Learned counsel contends that order of stay of dis-possession has been taken by way of not bringing true facts on record. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure R-1 and R-2 i.e. Jamabandies for the year 1971-72 and 1976-77, to say that Gram Panchayat has been in cultivating possession of the land on which the petitioner claims to be a tenant. 5. Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards Annexure R-3 to say that for the year 1981-82, auction of lease rights in land at issue was conducted. The petitioner happened to be the highest bidder and therefore, land was given to the petitioner for cultivation by the Gram Panchayat for one year. Annexure R-4 is the receipt issued to the petitioner in lieu of receipt CWP No.8172 of 2008 [3] of lease money. 6. Reference has been made to Annexure R-5 i.e. Resolution dated 17.7.1982 whereby land was again given to the highest bidder, the petitioner. In lieu of receipt of money, Annexure R-6 was issued to the petitioner. 7. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards Annexure R-7 i.e. Resolution dated 15.4.1984 vide which, in auction proceedings, land at issue was given to one Rajinder Kumar son of Babu Deen Dayal. Annexure R-8 is Resolution dated 5.7.2003 whereunder, the petitioner again was the highest bidder and took the land on lease for two years. Annexure R-10 is the receipt in lieu of receipt of lease amount from the petitioner. Annexure R-11 relates to auction proceedings held on 20.5.2005. The petitioner gave various bids as is evident from the auction proceedings, however, highest bidder was Kulwant Singh. The petitioner was unsuccessful in taking the land. 8. I have considered the documents to which reference has been made. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has no right to claim any relief in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 9. Perusal of documents which have gone uncontroverted, indicate that the petitioner took the Gram Panchayat land on lease through auction proceedings. At the end of the lease period, vacant possession was handed over to the Gram Panchayat. CWP No.8172 of 2008 [4] For subsequent period of time, the land was given to the next person who happened to be the highest bidder. It was imperative for the petitioner to have brought on record the Resolutions under which the petitioner took the land on lease in auction proceedings, however, it has not been done, rather an interim order was taken by way of stating misleading facts. 10. Since the petitioner has no right to claim any relief in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the petition is dismissed with costs, quantified at ` 5,000/-. (AJAI LAMBA) February 04, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?