Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) BY filing this writ petition, Petitioner has laid challenge to an order dated December 13, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 12911 of 1991, filed by the Appellants.
(2.) AS per facts on record, Respondent No. 4 Shish Ram filed an application, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961, against the Appellants with a prayer that they be ejected from the land bearing Khasra No. 137 measuring about 11 Marlas, which was reserved as a passage during the consolidation proceedings. To the contrary, the Appellants claimed that they had raised construction in their own land. That application was entertained by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, who gave an ample opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence in support of their claims. Before the above officer, Rajbir, one of the Appellants made a statement that the Appellants had no objection so far as ownership of the land was concerned.
(3.) AS per Jamabandi on record, land in dispute is shown as Gair Mumkin Rasta and under ownership of the Mushtarka Malkaan and Haqdaran of the village. After getting a report from the Tehsildar and taking note of a fact that the Appellants are in unauthorized occupation of the passage, their ejectment was ordered vide order dated September 5, 1988. The Appellants went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated February 5, 1990. Relevant portion of the order reads thus: After hearing the learned Counsel for both parties and perusing the record, I have come to the conclusion that according to the Jamabandi for the year 1982 -83 Ex. A -4, the Khasra No. 137 is a common path (Rasta Sare -aam). According to the report of Tehsildar, Dadri Ex. A.3, the illegal possession of the Defendants over the land in dispute is evident. The learned Counsel for the Appellants have raised two issues in his pleadings; that the appellate court has given no decision regarding ownership/ title; 11) that any map etc. has not been produced on file. The Appellants have themselves withdrawn their objection by their own statements. Therefore, rising of the objection by them at this stage is not justified. The map has been attached with the report of the Tehsildar, Dadri in which illegal possession of the Appellants has been shown. The statement of the Appellants that have constructed an old house 20/25 years earlier on the land in dispute also does not seem to be correct as Raghbir Singh etc. have themselves admitted in their pleadings that possession over the land in dispute has been taken by storing stones etc. The Appellants are going to change their views only to prolong/ lengthen the proceedings of the present suit. Keeping in view the above facts, the order passed by the lower court is in accordance with the rules and there is no error in it. There is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed.;