JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The father of the petitioners had filed two different applications under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act of 1961) for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 11 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khasra No. 13/4 (8-0), 5/1 (3-12), as per jamabandi for the years 2005-06, situated in the revenue estate of village Tarpai, Block Majitha, Tehsil and District Amritsar and second application with regard to the land measuring 5 kanals 36 marlas bearing Khewat Khatauni No. 643/916, Khasra No. 5//24(5-6), as per jamabandi for the year 2005-06, situated in the same revenue estate (supra), inter alia, with the pleading that he is a Khewatdar of the village and land in dispute is under his ownership and possession, being one of the co-sharer of the proprietary body. His possession over the land is continuous. His forefathers were in continuous uninterrupted possession over the land in dispute for the last 50 years. He never paid any rent to the respondents in this regard. The land in dispute is Patti Purana and Patti Mehma and was never kept for common purposes. Therefore, the land does not vest with the Gram Panchayat, as it falls in the exclusionary clause of Shamlat Deh, under Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1961. He further submitted that name of his father was recorded in the column No. 5 of Khasra Girdawari since the year 1975. The respondent Gram Panchayat had filed written statement to the application with a pleading therein, that there is no record to establish that the petitioners' forefathers were members and co-sharers of the proprietary body. There is no document to establish that the petitioners or their forefathers were in continuous possession of land in dispute since the year 1950. In fact, the land belongs to Patti Purana and Patti Mehama and the petitioners are not Pattidar. Therefore, no question arises that they became owners by virtue of his possession. It was further pleaded that the land in dispute is under administrative control of Gram Panchayat. Earlier an application under Section 7 of the Act of 1961 was filed against the father of the petitioners and the same was allowed vide order dated 5.4.2010 which was further challenged by filing an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Director, Rural and Development Panchayats-cum-Commissioner, Punjab, SAS Nagar, vide order dated 21.9.2012 and the father of the petitioners challenged the eviction orders (supra) by filing CWP No. 5538 of 2013. That writ petition was also dismissed vide order dated 15.3.2013 and thereafter, the possession of the land was taken over by the Panchayat and subsequently, the same was auctioned by the Gram Panchayat and is being cultivated by the Gram Panchayat's lessee.

2. Both the applications were dismissed by the Collector, Panchayat Land, Amritsar, vide even order dated 13.6.2012. The father of the petitioners made unsuccessful challenge to this order (supra) by filing statutory appeal before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab Mohali and the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2015. Feeling aggrieved by the above order, vide which the title suit of the father of the petitioners was dismissed, the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred before this Court by the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the petitioners through their forefathers are in continuous possession of the land since the year 1950 and they are owner in possession of 178 kanals 12 marlas and therefore, they are right holders of village Tarpai. To establish this, he