SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 29.8.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 15748 of 2010) filed by the appellant, challenging the orders dated 16.2.2009 and 28.5.2010 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala; and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, SAS Nagar (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), respectively, was dismissed.

Though there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 68-LPA of 2012) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits, and gone through the revenue record annexed with the writ petition, the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the Act as well as the order, passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the present case, on a petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, Village Karhali, Block Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), vide order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the Collector, the appellant was ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute, measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas. In appeal, the said order was upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 28.5.2010.

The appellant had opposed the eviction petition filed against her on the ground that the Gram Panchayat exchanged the disputed land measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas with her land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 24//11 (3-0) and 20 (2-15). It was the further case of the appellant that the said oral exchange, which had taken place on the basis of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, was duly reflected in the revenue record. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act before the authorities, the appellant filed a title suit under Section 11 of the Act before the Collector, which was subsequently dismissed in default. The Collector, while ordering eviction of the appellant from the land in dispute, did not accept the plea of the appellant that she had exchanged her land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas with the land measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The Commissioner affirmed this finding of the Collector.

Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant again raised the issue of exchange and argued that in view of the said exchange, which had taken place in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, possession of the appellant could not be said to be illegal and unauthorised, therefore, no ejectment order could have been passed against her. The learned Single Judge rejected the said contention, while observing as under :-

“The reliance on the exchange on the basis of the resolution of the Panchayat passed on 21.3.1986, would be of no avail to the petitioner as said resolution of the Panchayat would have no legal value as this exchange was never sent or approved by the competent authority. In the resolution, Annexure P-3, it is clearly recorded that it be sent to competent authority for according approval for the exchange of land. No such approval, however, was ever granted. In this regard, reference can be made to Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, which reads as under:-

“5. Exchange of land [5 and 15 (2) (f) of the Act] : A Panchayat, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village may, with the prior approval of the Government transfer any land in shamlat deh by exchange with the land of an equivalent value.

Provided that where the land is required, in connection with the Integrated Rural Development Programme sponsored by the Government, the Panchayat may, with the approval of the Collector transfer any land in shaml