JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners in these four cases (viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10497, 3562, 12025 and 12039 of 2000) are aggrieved by the orders of their eviction passed by the Collector. These orders were affirmed by the Commissioner under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short to be called "the Act"). This order shall dispose of all the aforementioned writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 10497 of 2000. These may be briefly noticed. 2. The petitioner-herein claims to be in possession of the land for the last more than 50 years. On June 1, 1999, the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act. It was alleged that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of land measuring 24 Kanals. This application was allowed vide order dated July 27, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-10 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated October 22, 1999. A copy of the order is at Annexure P-11 with the writ petition. The petitioner prays that the orders be quashed. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3562 of 2000. This fact was not disclosed while filing the present petition. Still further, while filing the petition, the petitioner had not challenged the orders, which have been impugned in the present petition despite the fact that he had the opportunity to do so. It has also not been disclosed that a civil suit had been filed for the grant of permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala. 4. In respect of the petitioners in the other cases, it has been averred that the land was given on lease. So far as petitioner-Pritam Singh is concerned, it has been averred that the land had been taken on lease by his son-Mangu. It has also been averred that neither the petitioner, nor his fore-fathers were in possession of the land. In fact, the petitioner is a lessee of the Grain Panchayat and has no title or right in the land. So far as petitioner-Pritam Singh is concerned, it has been averred that the land had been taken on lease by his son-Mangu. It has also been averred that neither the petitioner, nor his fore-fathers were in possession of the land. In fact, the petitioner is a lessee of the Grain Panchayat and has no title or right in the land. On these premises, the respondents claim that these writ petitions be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard, 6. The case was posted before the Court on December 13, 2000. It was directed that the petitioner shall place on record the material to show that he has a share in the Shamlat land and that the land in his possession was not in excess of the area, which fell to his share. 7. Despite the lapse of almost five months, no evidence has been placed on record. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have no right or title in the land in dispute. There is nothing on record to show that the finding of the Authorities is wrong. In this situation, we find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two Authorities that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. 8. No other point has been raised. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in these petitions, which are consequently dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.