JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.:-Respondent-Gram Panchayat has filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 before Assistant Collector Ist Grade seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed land measuring 16 kanals 17 marlas. The petitioner put in appearance and pleaded that he was in continuous possession of the land since the time of his forefathers and as such is not in an unauthorised possession of the land. Reference was made to the revenue record to show that the possession of the petitioner over the land in question was as a cosharer. It is also pleaded that the land was not reserved for common purposes. Reference is also made to civil court order dated 5.1.1967, where decree in favour of the petitioner concerning the ownership of the disputed land was passed. The Assistant Collector, however, ordered ejectment of the petitioner on 26.5.2006. Appeal against the said order was dismissed. Commissioner, remanded the case back to the Collector for deciding it afresh. The Collector, however, again dismissed the appeal and ultimately the order of ejectment has been upheld by the Commissioner, which is now impugned through the present writ petition. 2. As per jamabandi for the year 1957-58, Gram Panchayat has been shown as owner in possession of the disputed land. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat pleads that petitioner had no concern with the land in dispute. It is pointed out that civil court decree on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming ownership is a forged decree. It is stated that it will not bind the Gram Panchayat. Even there is no record of the decree in the revenue record. The petitioner has, thus, been found in an unauthorized possession and order of his eviction made. 3. The finding by the authorities is that the land in dispute was reserved for common purposes, i.e. fuel needs of the villages. Relying on the case of Jai Singh etc. Vs. State of Haryana &another, 2003(2) RCR 597, it is observed that land reserved for common purposes during consolidation would vest in Gram Panchayat. The petitioner had admitted before the authorities that he never gave any batai in respect of this land to Gram Panchayat, which was concededly the owner. 4. Relying on the case of Jai Singh etc. Vs. State of Haryana &another, 2003(2) RCR 597, it is observed that land reserved for common purposes during consolidation would vest in Gram Panchayat. The petitioner had admitted before the authorities that he never gave any batai in respect of this land to Gram Panchayat, which was concededly the owner. 4. The primary submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that he had raised a question of title and as such the authorities were bound to decide the same, which has not been done. The perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Collector shows that the petitioner was given a chance to lead evidence to show his title over the land and he basically relied on the civil court decree dated 5.1.1967, which was found to be forged or not binding. It was also found as a matter of fact that the land measuring 15 kanals 14 marlas as per jamabandi 1995-96, is shown in the ownership of Panchayat and in the cultivation column, petitioner is recorded as Gair Marusi Mujara. In fact, the petitioner made a statement that his marriage was performed in the village in the year 1969 and land was mutated in his favour only in 1972. It is on this finding of fact that the order of his ejectment was made. 5. While dealing with this plea, the Commissioner also noticed that the petitioner though had raised an issue of ownership but failed to prove the same. He failed to make the payment of amount of penalty despite opportunity, whereas it was incumbent upon him to do so in terms of Section 13-B(1). The submission by the counsel for the petitioner that when he had raised a question of title, then the revenue authorities were bound to convert the proceedings into a regular suit would also not help him much as the question has been gone into and the petitioner could not prove it. The judgments relied upon by him apparently are in different context on the basis of entries in the revenue record. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ----------------