ORDER Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - An application under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 was filed against the petitioner and four others. It was alleged that they were in unauthorised occupation of 4 kanals and 6 marlas of land. This application was allowed by the Collector Gurdaspur vide order dated September 19, 1997. The petitioner alongwith Bawa Singh filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated February 18, 1999. The petitioner alleges that the orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.1 and P.2 are wholly illegal. Thus, these should be quashed. 2. Notice of motion was issued. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. Mr. M.S. Bedi, counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent- Panchayat is not the owner. The land vests in the land owners of the village. Thus, the Panchayat could not have filed a petition under Section 5 of the 1973 Act. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents. 5. The petitioner has not produced anything to show that he has any right or title in the property. It has not even been alleged or suggested that the petitioner is a right-holder of the village. Even if it is assumed that the land in dispute belongs to the proprietary, body of the village, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is one of the land owners or proprietors of village Khawaja Wardag. Thus, the petitioner has no right or title to the property in dispute. Still further, the entries in the Revenue record show that Panchayat is the owner. The authorities have recorded a finding. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the finding is wrong. 6. Faced with this situation, Mr. Bedi has contended that the Panchayat is not the owner. Thus, it could not have filed a petition for the eviction of the petitioner. The authorities have recorded a finding. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the finding is wrong. 6. Faced with this situation, Mr. Bedi has contended that the Panchayat is not the owner. Thus, it could not have filed a petition for the eviction of the petitioner. Section 2(e) of the Act inter alia provides as under :- "2(e) Public Premises means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the State Government and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by or on behalf of : (i) any Municipal Committee, Notified Area Committee, Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Panchayat or Improvement Trust." A perusal of the above provision would show that a property is considered to be Public Premises even when it merely belongs to a Municipal Committee or a Panchayat. It is not necessary that it should be owned by the Panchayat. The Legislature has used the expression "belonging to" and not "owned by". Keeping in view this position, we are unable to accept the contention that the Panchayat could not have moved the petition for the petitioners eviction. No other point has been raised. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.