ALOK SINGH,J. - (1.) Respondent No.3 - Gram Panchayat has initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act), which was allowed and appeal therefrom was also dismissed by the impugned orders dated 30.04.2010 and 25.03.2011 respectively. Undisputedly, as per jamabandies Annexures P/6 to P/8, land in dispute is recorded as panchayat deh and petitioner is recorded as cultivator and type of the land is mentioned as 'Chahi. Petitioner has not placed on the record any document to say that petitioner is in cultivation as a lessee, tenant or licensee on behalf of the Panchayat.
(2.) The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that panchayat deh is not a shamlat deh, therefore, Section 7 of 1961 Act cannot be pressed in service to evict the petitioner therefrom. There is no dispute that panchayat deh is the property owned, managed and controlled by panchayat. Petitioner has not pleaded and proved under what capacity petitioner has entered into the possession of the land in question, therefore, possession of the petitioner is unauthorized, hence, petitioner cannot resist eviction. It is not the case of the petitioner that petitioner is owner of the property. Petitioner has not raised question of title saying that petitioner was in possession on or before the appointed day. In the identical case, learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Krishna v. Commissioner, Ambala Division reported in 1997(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 654 has confirmed the eviction of the unauthorized occupant having observed that without placing on record evidence to prove under what capacity occupier is occupying a panchayat deh cannot resist the eviction under Section 7 of 1961 Act. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned orders.
(3.) Dismissed.;