SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) IN this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 04.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.13495 of 2011) filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 18.04.2006 (Annexure P-7) and 23.04.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Collector and Commissioner, respectively, has been dismissed.
(2.) THOUGH this appeal is barred by limitation, and along with the appeal, the appellant has filed an application (C.M.No.1637 of 2012) for condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the appeal, yet without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In this case, vide order dated 18.04.2006, the Collector had dismissed the title suit filed by the appellant under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') while coming to the conclusion that the land in dispute, which in the revenue record was described as Shamlat Deh, vested in the Gram Panchayat under Section 3 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953') and mutation to that effect was entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat on 22.8.1959, and further the appellant had failed to prove his possession over the land in dispute prior to 26.1.1950. He had also failed to prove that he was one of the proprietors of the village and was having any share in the common land. In appeal, the said order was affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 23.04.2008.
(3.) THE writ petition filed by the appellant challenging those orders has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal.;