Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Collector in the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 on 03.02.2012 whereby the petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and also to an order passed by the Director, Rural Development Panchayat, Punjab exercising the powers of the Commissioner on 06.12.2013 in an appeal. The petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act inter alia asserting that they are in continuous un -interrupting physical possession of the land for the last more than 50 years without payment of anything to the respondents or any other person. It is also pleaded that the land was originally owned and possessed by Muslims, who have migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947. Thereafter, the petitioners entered into the possession of the land in question. The Panchayat in its reply denied that the suit land was originally owned and possessed by the Muslims or that the suit land came under possession of the family of the petitioners as alleged. It is averred that father of the petitioners was lessee under the panchayat and have not paid lease money after the year 2000. The petitioners have no right to continue in possession of the land owned by the respondents.
(2.) CONSIDERING respective stand of the parties, learned Collector vide order Annexure P -4 found that the land in question measuring 34 kanals 14 marlas is on lease with Sita Ram s/o. Jawala Ram on payment of Chakota. It has been also found that the petitioners are not in possession prior to 26.01.1950 and that in terms of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the petitioner cannot deny the title of their landlords. The Petitioners are lessee under the respondents. Such order was affirmed in appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the land was owned by Muslims and, therefore, does not vest in panchayat. Therefore, the Authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of title over the land in question. He prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Authorities under the Rehabilitation Laws.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in the present petition.;