JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. In this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.9.2002. Annexure P-6, passed by the Commissioner, while setting aside the order dated 10.6.1999. Annexure P-5, passed by the Collector, and ordering ejectment of the petitioners from the land in question under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Gram Panchayat, Village Ratta Kadim, District Kapurthala, filed an ejectment application against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Act alleging therein that the land in question is owned by it and the same was leased 6ut to the petitioners in the year 1994-95 in an open auction for two years on the yearly rent of Rs. 9,500/-. After the expiry of the lease period, possession of the land was not returned to the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners remained in unauthorised and illegal occupation of the same. Hence, the ejectment application was filed. Before the Collector, the petitioners contested the ejectment application on the ground that the land in question does not belong to the Gram Panchayat but it belongs to the Custodian, therefore, the Gram Panchayat has no right to get him ejected. Though it was not controverted by the petitioners that they had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat.
3. The Collector dismissed the aforesaid ejectment application vide order dated 10.6.1999 by holding that the land in dispute was recorded as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat. Even prior to the year 1947, it was reserved for common purposes of the village it, the Bandobast of 1978 Bikrami. It was further found that certain Muslim proprietors, who migrated from this village after partition were having the share in the aforesaid Shamilat Deh, therefore, the evacuees were having interest in this property. Thus, it was held that it vests in the Custodian.
4. In appeal, the aforesaid order dated 10.6.1999, passed by the Collector, has been set aside by the Commissioner vide impugned order dated 11.9.2002 on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and Ors., A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 1394 where it was held that all the Shamilat Deh vest in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Act, even though some evacuees were having an interest in Shamilat Deh being proprietors in the village.
5. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the land in question does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners cannot be ordered to be ejected, particularly when their title suit is pending. He further contended that in the revenue record, the land has been described as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat in possession of Makbuja Malkan and the same was never used for any common purpose of the village. Therefore, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that merely because the petitioners had participated in the auction and taken the land on lease, it cannot be said that they cannot question the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, when in the revenue record the land has not been described to be owned by the Gram Panchayat. In this regard, he has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha Village Ugani v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1997(2) P.L.J. 3.
6. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this petition. When, even much prior to partition of the country, in the Bandobast of 1978 Bikrami, the land in question was recorded as Shamilat Deh, such land vests in the Gram Panchayat as the same was reserved for common purposes of the village. For such land, it is not required to establish that it is being used for common purposes of the village, because such Shamilat Deh, as recorded in the revenue record, was reserved for common purposes of the village and was being used as such. All the proprietors of the village, including the Muslim proprietors, who were having interest in the said Shamilat Deh, could not have partition or change nature of the Shamilat Deh. The only effect of the migration of the Muslim proprietors and coming into force of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was that interest of the Muslim proprietors vest in the Custodian but such vesting of interest did not, however, divest Shamilat Deh lands and convert them into khewat land. Such Shamilat Deh could only be continued and did continue to be Shamilat Deh and the Custodian could only deal with them as Shamilat Deh lands in the same manner in which the Muslim proprietors could have dealt with them had they not migrated to Pakistan. All such Shamilat Deh lands vest in the Gram Panchayat with the coming into force of the Act. This position has been made clear by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur’s case (supra).
7. In this case, the petitioners had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1994-95 and after the expiry of the lease period, their possession became unauthorised. It is settled proposition of law that in view of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, a lessee, who has taken the land on lease cannot question the title of his landlord. In this regard, reference can be made to decisions of this Court in Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. Joint Director, Panchayats and Ors., (1999-2)122 P.L.R. 361 and Mam Deen v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2000-1)127 P.L.R. 563. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
8. Dismissed.