Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Gram Panchayat, Village Mardanheri (now bifurcated in two Gram Panchayats i.e., Gram Panchayat Mardaheri and Gram Panchayat, village Dera Bajigar), filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 05.06.1997 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, IRD, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner) (respondent No. 1 herein), vide which the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 against the order of dismissal of application filed by him under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was allowed and the order of the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Patiala (exercising the Powers of Collector) (respondent No. 2 herein) dated 01.10.1996 was set aside.
2. On 23.5.1994, respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 11 of the Actbefore respondent No. 2 for declaring him owner of the land measuring 31 kanals 19marlas situated in village Mardaheri as the said land does not fall under the definition of'shamlat deh' as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act and the same does not vest in theGram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Act. Respondent No. 3 pleaded that he had beenin continuous possession of the land in question 12 years prior to the enforcement of theAct. Earlier, this land was 'Banjar Qadim' and was never used for any common purposeof the village, therefore, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.
3. The petitioner Gram Panchayat contested the aforesaid application. It was pleaded by it that the land in question is the shamlat deh and the same is owned by it as per the revenue record. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 3 was not in possession of this land 12 years prior to the coming into force of the Act. Actually, he took the land in question on lease from the Gram Panchayat and did not vacate the same after the expiry of lease period. Therefore, possession of respondent No. 3 is wholly illegal and unauthorised. It was also pleaded that since respondent No. 3 took the disputed land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, therefore, he is not entitled to challenge its ownership and the application filed by him under Section 11 of the Act for declaring him owner was not maintainable.
4. Respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 01.10.1996 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the aforesaid application filed by respondent No. 3 while observing as under:-
'After hearing the arguments of counsel for both parties, and perusing the documents brought on record, I have come to the conclusion that the applicant has failed to prove his possession prior to 26.1.1950 continuously. The applicant took this land on Chakota from Panchayat for year 1992-93 as per copy register Patta Auction Shamilat Exhibit R-1 and in the year 1993-94, Exhibit R-3 and, as such, he has no right to challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat in respect of this land as is clear from the judgment reported in (1987)89 P.L.R. Page 239 and 1983(1) I.L.R. 121 rendered by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. According to the revenue record produced the land is shamlat which is used for common purposes of the village. On the basis of these facts, the application of the applicant is rejected. The land in question is declared the ownership of the Gram Panchayat.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, respondent No. 3 filed appeal before respondent No. 1, which was allowed vide order dated 05.06.1997 (Annexure P-2) by observing as under:
'After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the case of the appellant stands fully proved by way of documents mentioned in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The revenue documents from 1949-50 to date are in his favour. One stray entry of lease having been made to one Balauchi Ram will not change the nature of the land, This auction itself does not stand proved. The receipt and proceedings are not exhibited. This lease is also not of the khasra numbers in dispute. Except this, the Gram Panchayat has no other stand. Therefore, on the basis of overwhelming evidence in the form of revenue record, I have no hesitation to hold that the case of the appellant succeeds and the order of the learned lower court goes.'
6. The petitioner Gram Panchayat has challenged the aforesaid order passed by the learned Commissioner in the instant petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record of the case. In my opinion, the instant writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat deserves to be allowed as respondent No. 1 has set aside the order passed by respondent No. 2 without properly considering the whole matter in its right prospective. Admittedly, in the jamabandi for the year 1953-54, land in question is recorded as 'Shamlat Deh' Hasab Rasad Jare Khewat' in cultivating possession of Maqbuja Malkan. In the year 1954-55, this land was mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat under the proceedings of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953. Since then, the petitioner is continuously recorded as owner ig possession of the land in question. From time to time, the aforesaid land was being leased out to various persons. Respondent No. 3 also took this land on lease from the petitioner. This fact has been established on record by the petitioner before respondent No. 2 by placing on record copy of Patta Register dated 15.03.1992 (Ex.R1), copy of receipt dated 15.5.1992 (Ex.R2), copy of Patta Register dated 07.06.1993 (Ex.R3), copy of receipt dated 07.06.1993 (Ex.R4), copy of Patta Register (Ex.R5) and copy of receipt dated 09.05.1994 (Ex.R6).In addition to the aforesaid documents, the petitioner placed on record jamabandi for the year 1991-92, in which its name is recorded in the column of ownership, whereas name of respondent No. 3 is recorded in the column of cultivation as Gair Marusi. In column No. 9, it has been mentioned that this land is on chakota at the rate of Rs. 250/- per acre. From these documents, it is clear that respondent No. 3 was the lessee of the petitioner and after the expiry of lease period, he did not hand over vacant possession of the land in question to the petitioner. According to Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964, the possession of a lessee after the expiry of the lease period shall be deemed to be unauthorised and illegal. In this regard reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurnam Singh and Ors. v. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kaithal and Ors., (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 642 (S.C.) and the decisions of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Jurassi Kalan v. The Collector, Kurukshetra, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 528, Roshan lal and Ors. v. The Secretary, Government of Haryana and Ors., (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 651 (F.B.), Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 785, Mam Deen v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2001-1)127 P.L.R. 563. In this case, respondent No. 3 himself has placed on record the copies of Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 (Ex.P12) and 1986-87 (Ex.P15). In these Jamabandis also, he has been recorded as lessee of the petitioner as Chakotedar. There is no entry in favour of respondent No. 3 prior to the year 1971-72 where he is recorded in possession of the land in question as Chakotedar.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual position and the availability of the documents on record, respondent No. 2 has rightly dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 11 of the Act while holding that once respondent No. 3 took the land in question on lease from the petitioner, he cannot challenge the ownership of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 has not at all considered this aspect of the matter while reversing the order of respondent No. 2. It is well settled that a person having taken the land on lease cannot subsequently challenge the title of his landlord. In this regard, reference can be made to Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. Joint Director, Panchayats and Ors., 1999(1) P.L.J. 318 and Mam Deen v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2001-1)127 P.L.R. 563.
9. There is another aspect of the matter. The land in question was mutated in favour of the petitioner in the year 1954-55 vide mutation which was placed on record before respondent No. 2 as Ex.P6. The said change of ownership in favour of the petitioner from Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Jare Khewat was not challenged by any proprietor of the village. Respondents No. 3 has not placed on record any material to show that the aforesaid land was never used for common purpose of the village. In absence of any such material, it cannot be said that the aforesaid land was never used for common purpose of the village. Rather respondent No. 2 has held that the land in question was being used for the common purposes of the village. Merely because the land in question was described as 'Banjar Qadim' in the revenue record, it cannot be concluded that the said land in question was not being used for common purpose of the village and the same does not vest in the petitioner on the basis of Full Bench decision of this Court in Gram Panchayat Sadhraur and Gram Sabha Sadhraur v. Baldev Singh and Ors., 1977 P.L.J. 276. The pleaded case of respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 2 was that he was owner of the land in question as he was in possession of the same 12 years prior to the commencement of the Act but he did not lead any evidence to prove his plea nor there is any material on the record which establish that respondent No. 3 was in possession of the land in question 12 years prior to the commencement of the Act i.e., prior to 26.01.1950. Thus, in no circumstance respondent No. 3 can be desired to be owner of the land in question and respondent No. 1 has illegally declared him so vide the impugned order.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 05.06.1997 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Panchayats, Punjab (Exercising the powers of Commissioner) is set aside and the order dated 01.10.1996 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala (exercising the powers of Collector) is restored.
11. No order as to costs.