Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2470, 9521, 9814, 10110 and 17377 of 1999 as in all these petitions the common questions of fact and law are involved. In these petitions, the petitioners have impugned the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner passed under Section 5 of the Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), vide which the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the land in question. All these cases were heard together by the Collector and were disposed of vide separate orders on 27th August, 1998. For the disposal of the aforesaid petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the facts are taken from C.W.P. No. 9814 of 1999. 2. On 3rd November, 1997, the State of Haryana through Sub Divisional Officer, Anta Water Services Sub Division, Safidon, District Jind, filed an application under Section 5 of the Act before the Collector, Sub Division, Safidon, for eviction of the petitioners from the land measuring 76 Kanals 75 marlas situated in village Anta, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, by alleging therein that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the land in question owned by the Slate of Haryana, which, according to the provisions of the Act, constitute a public premises. It has been stated in that application that the land in question is owned by the State Government and in the jamabandis for the years 1924-25 to 1994-95, the aforesaid land is recorded under the ownership of provincial Government, it was further alleged that when on 26th September, 1997, the spot inspection and demarcation of the aforesaid land was done by the Field Kanungo under the supervision of Tehsildar, Safidon, then it was found that the petitioners have encroached upon the aforesaid land without any right and title, and their possession over the aforesaid land was wholly unauthorised and illegal. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioners under Section 4(1) of the Act the petitioners appeared before the Collector. Sub Division, Safidon and filed their reply. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioners under Section 4(1) of the Act the petitioners appeared before the Collector. Sub Division, Safidon and filed their reply. In the reply, they raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the proceedings of ejectment against them are not maintainable because a civil suit is pending between the parties regrading the land in question in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Safidon. On merits, it was pleaded that the land in question was previously owned by their ancestors and somewhere in the year 1905, the land in question was taken by the State Government for constructing a silt tank without payment of any cost/compensation. The said silt tank was never built by the provincial Government, therefore, the land in question should have been returned to its original owners. Since the petitioners are the successors of the previous owners, therefore, neither the land in question can be said to be a public premises nor their possession can be termed as unauthorised or illegal. The petitioners further pleaded mat they are in continuous possession of the land in question from a long time, therefore, they are not liable to be evicted from the land in question. Since the respondent-State is not the owner of the land in question, therefore, a question of title is involved and the petitioners cannot be summarily evicted from the land in question under the aforesaid Act. 4. After reply, both the parties were provided opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim. On behalf of the respondent-State, the statements of the Sub Divisional Officer, the Field Kanungo and Halqa Patwari were recorded and the jamabandis for the years 1924-25 to 1994-95 were placed on record. On behalf of the petitioners, the statements of witnesses, namely, Manjit Singh and Karambir Singh, were recorded. However, the petitioners did not lead any documentary evidence in support of their claim in spite of several opportunities granted to them. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Collector, Sub Division, Safidon ordered eviction of the petitioners from the land in question. It was found that in the revenue record, the land in question is recorded under the ownership of the provincial Government since 1924-25. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Collector, Sub Division, Safidon ordered eviction of the petitioners from the land in question. It was found that in the revenue record, the land in question is recorded under the ownership of the provincial Government since 1924-25. In the aforesaid various jamabandis, in column No. 5, there is no entry of the name of any of the petitioners as cultivators nor the land in question was ever taken on lease from the Government. It was further held that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to establish that the land in question is owned by them or the same does not fall under the definition of Public Premises or their possession is authorised or legal. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar under Section 9 of the Act. The learned Commissioner vide his order dated 28th May, 1999 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 27th August, 1998 passed by the Collector, while observing as under:- "As per the entries of jamabandis, the ownership of the land vests with the State Government. These entries are undisputed and have been continuing since long. No steps were taken by the appellants to get the entries corrected for over 70 years. They have also not challenged mutation No. 10, referred to above. Under the circumstances, there is no question of title in these cases. Under the Public Premises Act, Collector is not required to decide the question of title. He is required to decide unauthorised possession on the basis of record available. On the basis of record, the ownership of the land in question undoubtedly vests in the State of Haryana and, therefore, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed. The appellants are otherwise at liberty to file civil suit and seek remedy regarding title from appropriate Court of law." 7. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions challenging the aforesaid orders passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner. These petitions were admitted by the Division Bench of this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid petitions, the civil suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20th November, 1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon. These petitions were admitted by the Division Bench of this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid petitions, the civil suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20th November, 1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon. The petitioners also filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree. The same has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 9th April, 2002. Some of the facts of the said civil suit are necessary for the present controversy. 8. The petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 54 dated 24th January, 1990 titled "Jai Ram etc. v. State of Haryana etc." for declaration to the effect that they are owners and in possession 91 the land in question with consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-State of Haryana from forcibly dispossessing them from the suit land. In that suit, it was pleaded by the petitioners that their ancestors Udmi and Ami Lal, who were real brothers, were the owners of the land in question situated in village Anta, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. In the year 1905, the British Rulers acquired the suit and free of compensation for construction of silt tank to strengthen the canal with condition that the land would be reverted to the owners as and when the purpose of acquisition is served. The ancestors of the petitioners were beneficiaries of the canal and the silt tanks, therefore, they did not raise any objection for the said acquisition. Even otherwise, during the British Rule, it was a precedent that the land of beneficiaries for every public work was acquired free of compensation with the condition that the land would be reverted to them as and when the purpose is served. The purpose was served in the year 1946-47 as the canal for which silt tanks were constructed, was abolished and suit and reverted to the petitioners and since then they are owners and in actual physical possession of the same. It was further pleaded that in the revenue record, the defendants-State of Haryana have been illegally shown owners and in cultivating possession of the said land. The petitioners asked the defendants-State to get the revenue entries corrected in their favour and not to interfere in their physical possession. When they refused to do so, they filed the said suit for declaration. 9. The petitioners asked the defendants-State to get the revenue entries corrected in their favour and not to interfere in their physical possession. When they refused to do so, they filed the said suit for declaration. 9. The above suit was hotly contested by the respondent-State by pleading that neither the petitioners are the successors of the aforesaid two persons Udmi and Ami Lal for the land in question was owned by their ancestors. In fact, the State of Haryana is the owner. From the last so many years, the land in question is recorded under the ownership and possession of the provincial Government and the petitioners are in illegal and unauthorised possession. 10. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. Ultimately, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20lh November, 1998 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners while holding that they are not the owners of the land in question nor they are entitled for any injunction. The appeal of the petitioners against the aforesaid judgment and decree was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 9th April, 2002. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge observed as under:- "The plaintiffs to prove that they are owners and in possession of the suit land and previously their predecessors-in-interest were owners and in possession of the suit land and suit land was acquired by the British Rulers for construction of silt tanks without any compensation with condition that after fulfilling object (purpose), the suit land will be reverted to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs. Examined Om Singh as PW1, Raj Singh as PW2 and Vinod as PW3. They have deposed on oath that plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the suit land since immemorial. The defendants have no concern whatsoever with the ownership and possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs in support of their case also relied upon jamabandi for the year 1984-85 as Ex.P1. From the perusal of Ex.P1, it reveals that defendants are owners and in possession of the suit land. Except the oral statements of PW1 to PW3, who are interested persons being plaintiffs, there is not even an iota of evidence to prove the ownership and possession of the suit land. From the perusal of Ex.P1, it reveals that defendants are owners and in possession of the suit land. Except the oral statements of PW1 to PW3, who are interested persons being plaintiffs, there is not even an iota of evidence to prove the ownership and possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs by producing revenue record could prove ancestral nature, their ownership and possession over the suit land but they failed to produce any revenue record or title deed showing their ownership, hence adverse inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act goes against the plaintiffs. Now it is well settled principle of law that when documentary evidence is available, oral evidence can not be looked into. Since, the documentary evidence regarding ownership of the suit land was available in the form of revenue record and title deed but plaintiffs failed to produce the same, so oral statements of PW1 to PW3 can not be looked into. Even otherwise oral statements of PW1 to PW3 are not sufficient to prove ancestral nature of the suit land and ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. So, I have no hesitation in concluding that plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the suit land is their ancestral property and they are owners and in possession of the suit land. So, the lower Court has rightly decided both issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants." 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent-State produced a photo copy of the judgment dated 9th April, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar The same was taken on record and marked as Annexure A. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the dismissal of the suit and appeal filed by the petitioners. However, he raised the following arguments in support of his case. 12. While referring to the decision in Raj Kumar Divender Singh and Anr., v. State of Punjab and Ors., A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 66 and the decision of this Court in Bihari v. The State of Haryana, (1987)2 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 563, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question before the date the land came under the ownership of the Government. Therefore, their possession over the land in question cannot be said to be unauthorised occupation of the public premises. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent-State neither pleaded nor proved as to from which date the petitioners are in unauthorised and illegal, occupation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Divender Singhs case (supra)"- "A person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of public premises for purposes of Section 3(a) where he has, before or after the commencement of the Act, entered into possession thereof, otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant. The word thereof makes it clear that the person must have entered into possession of public premises before or after the commencement of the Act in order that he may be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation. If the appellants were in possession before the date of the sale of the property to the Government, it could not be said that the appellants entered into possession of public premises, for, at the time when they were in occupation of the property, the property was not public premises. Then it was either the joint family property or the property of the Maharaja, namely, Yadavindra Singh. The property was not public premises before it was sold to the Government. So, if the appellants were in possession of the property before it was sold to the Government, it could not be said that they entered into possession of public premises before or after the commencement of the Act and Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act cannot obviously apply and the appellants were not in unauthorised occupation of public premises with the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 3. Therefore, the question is, whether the appellants were in possession of the property before it was sold to the Government." 13. After hearing the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, I find no force in the aforesaid submission. Undisputedly in the revenue record, from 1924-25 to 1994-95, the provincial Government is recorded as owner as well as in possession of the land in question. After hearing the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, I find no force in the aforesaid submission. Undisputedly in the revenue record, from 1924-25 to 1994-95, the provincial Government is recorded as owner as well as in possession of the land in question. Admittedly, as per the averments made by the petitioners themselves, in the civil suit, the British Rulers acquired the land in question in the year 1905 for the purpose of constructing a silt tank to strengthen the canal. As per the pleadings of the petitioners, in the year 1946-47, the canal for which the silt tanks were constructed, was abolished, therefore, the land in question was reverted to them. Thereafter, they are in possession of the land in question. Their aforesaid plea was not believed by the civil Court and the same was rejected. Once in the Civil Court the petitioners were found not to be the owners of the land in question and the question of title was decided against them, then it cannot be held that their possession over the land in question is legal and authorised and the land in question does not fall under the definition of Public Premises. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the instant case, the question of title was involved and both the authorities under the Act passed the order of eviction against them without deciding the question of title. In my opinion, there is no force in the aforesaid contention also. In view of the judgment and decree dated 24th January, 1990 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon, the suit filed by the petitioners for declaration has been dismissed and the claim of the petitioners regarding ownership and authorised possession of the suit property on the same plea has been rejected. The pleading of the petitioners in the instant writ petition and in the civil Suit are exactly similar. The claim of the petitioners has been determined by the civil Court and it has been held that the petitioners are not the owners of the land in question. The said decision shall be binding on the petitioners and it will operate as res judicata against them. 15. The claim of the petitioners has been determined by the civil Court and it has been held that the petitioners are not the owners of the land in question. The said decision shall be binding on the petitioners and it will operate as res judicata against them. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders nor there is any jurisdictional error in the same. Both the authorities under the Act have passed the order of eviction against the petitioners after taking into consideration the revenue record and other evidence available on record, and after coming to the rightful conclusion that the land in question falls under the definition of Public Premises and the possession of the petitioners is wholly illegal and unauthorised. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the aforesaid petitions and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.