The lack of evidence to support a claim to land ownership and the previous admission of illegal possession influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - Petitioner is aggrieved of Rapat No.302 dated 27.05.2020 (Annexure P1) entered in revenue record on the basis of order dated 14.05.2020 passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Moga allegedly without issuance of any notice for eviction of the petitioner from the land measuring 38 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kishanpura Kalan, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga. Petitioner further seeks direction to the respondents not to interfere in his possession of the land in question.

2. It is pleaded that the petitioner is a resident of village Kishanpura Kalan and he is in actual, physical possession of the land in dispute. Prior thereto, petitioner's father, grand-father and great grand-father are stated to have been in actual, physical possession of the land in question. Reference is made to copy of Jamabandi for the year 2014-2015 (Annexure P2) and copy of Khasra Girdawari for the years 2015-2020 (Annexure P3). It is further submitted that petitioner's father had obtained an electric motor connection for running tubewell in the year 1984 for irrigation of the land in dispute. Petitioner, it is stated, is sought to be evicted from the land in question without even affording him an opportunity of hearing and has been condemned unheard. Petitioner tried to get a certified copy of order dated 14.05.2020 but to no avail. It is, thus, submitted that Rapat No.302 dated 27.05.2020 has been entered in the revenue record in an illegal and arbitrary manner in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically Rule 20 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964.

3. Affidavit dated 09.07.2020 of Deputy Commissioner, Moga has been filed in compliance of order dated 19.06.2020 wherein it is clearly explained that as per revenue record, land in question belongs to respondent No.4 i.e., Gram Panchayat, Kishanpura Kalan. In the year 2005, eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Said petition was allowed by the Collector and present petitioner held to be in illegal possession of the land in dispute. Pursuant thereto, warrant of possession had been issued and duly executed on 03.03.2005. Demarcation of Shamlat land vesting in the Gram Panchayat including the pond (Chhapper) situated in Khasra Nos.9//17-22, 8//2-7-8-9-10-2//21 and Khasra Nos.50//19-2-50//20-21-22-15//25, 53//11-12/1-12/2/1-30-18-19/1-19/2, 62//6-78-13-14-15, 53//4-7-19-22-23-24, 53//9-10 was conducted through the concerned Kanungo and Patwari on 18.03.2020. After demarcation, it was found that some residents of the village (including the present petitioner) were in illegal occupation of Panchayat land. Notice dated 06.04.2020 was issued to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat through the village Chowkidar for handing over the vacant peaceful possession of the land in dispute. Petitioner is stated to have refused to accept the notice as informed by the village Chowkidar. Resolution dated 14.04.2020 was passed by the Gram Panchayat regarding illegal possession over the Panchayat land by the residents. It is thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny that possession of the land in question already stands taken. It is so recorded in Rapat No.302 dated 27.05.2020 that possession of the land in dispute was taken at the spot in the presence of Harinder Kaur Sarpanch, Gurdev Singh Panch, Tarsem Singh Panch and Billu Singh Panch. It is specifically mentioned in affidavit dated 19.06.2020 that due notice was issued to the petitioner, who refused to accept the same. Proclamation was also done in the village on 14.05.2020. No order regarding stay of dispossession was presented by any of the concerned parties. It is further stated in the said affidavit that reliance by the petitioner on order dated 28.05.2020 passed by the learned civil court is misconstrued for the reason that the said suit had been filed by the petitioner against some private per