Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.1987 passed by the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner), dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Collector (D.D.P.O.), Punjab, dated 19.5.1984 by which he had ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute. 2. The respondent-Gram Panchayat, Bibipur, Tehsil and District Patiala, had filed a suit under Section 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, claiming that the land in dispute vested with the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners were in unauthorised possession thereof. Accordingly, the ejectment of the petitioners was sought from the said land. The petitioners set up a case that they had purchased the land in dispute and, as such, were in possession of the same as owners. However, no evidence in this regard was adduced. The claim of the Gram Panchayat was accepted and order of their eviction was passed. Not satisfied, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab. The same was dismissed with the following observations:- "I have carefully examined the record produced by both the parties and heard their arguments. The parties have placed on record the jamabandis for the years 1967-68 and 1977-78. According to these jamabandies it is Gram Panchayat who is the owner of the land in dispute. There is no second opinion about the same. The appellants have not produced any such evidence from which the ownership of Gram Panchayat can be belied or any doubt is created regarding the ownership of the Gram Panchayat of the land in dispute. The appellant can keep the possession over the land in dispute on the basis of his possession, if his possession of the land in dispute is since before 26.1.1950. According the jamabandi of the year 1967-68 in the column of cultivation, the names of so many persons have been described. In the said order, the appellant was not in possession of the land in dispute in his individual capacity. His individual capacity starts over the land in dispute after the said year. Even if it is admitted that he was in individual possession in the year 1967-68, then also his individual possession starts from the year 1967-68. He has failed to establish his possession before this." 6. His individual capacity starts over the land in dispute after the said year. Even if it is admitted that he was in individual possession in the year 1967-68, then also his individual possession starts from the year 1967-68. He has failed to establish his possession before this." 6. The appellants have not produced any such evidence from which it can be proved that the appellant had purchased the land in dispute. The counsel for the appellant has stressed his arguments on the point that the court below had not given him the proper opportunity to lead the evidence. This argument cannot stand. From seeing the orders of the lower court, it is revealed that the appellants were given opportunities to lead evidence on 7.4.84, 14.4.82, 23.4,82, 29.6.82, 17.8.82, 29.8.82, 19.10.82, 10.11.82, 2.12.82 and 6.1.83 but he did not produce any evidence. 7. Keeping in view the arguments I have reached to the conclusion that the land in dispute belongs to Gram Panchayat. There is no second opinion about this. The appellants possession over the land in dispute can at the best be considered from the year 1967-68 and on the basis of said possession, he has no right to keep the possession of the land in dispute, therefore, this appeal is rejected." 3. A perusal of the above clearly shows that despite numerous opportunities, the petitioners had failed to produce any evidence to show that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner. In these circumstances, the view taken by the Joint Director appears to be fair and reasonable. 4. No one is present on behalf of the petitioners. Dismissed for non-prosecution.