JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.:-The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of illegal vesting of proprietary rights in respondent Nos.7 and 8 of a disputed shamlat land, they being tenant and cancellation of subsequent sale by them in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. Petitioner is a proprietor of a land situated in village Bartana, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali. As per jamabandi of 1905-06, ancestors of respondent Nos.7 and 8 were occupancy tenants on the land of grand-father of the petitioner. As per jambandi for the year 1938-39, the said ancestors were shown as occupancy tenants under the father of the petitioner. In the year 1951, an Act known as “Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of proprietary Rights) Act was promulgated. As per the provisions of this Act, the occupancy tenants in Punjab became full owners of their occupancy tenancies. The counsel for the petitioner pleads that the occupancy tenants cannot become owners as right holders of a corresponding land in a share of shamlat, even if they become owners of their occupancy tenancies. 3. Consolidation took place in the village in the year 1956. Shamlat land was allotted to Gram Panchayat. In the year 1985, the right holders of the village filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act claiming share in the shamlat land, which, according to them, was required to be entered in their names as owners. This petition was allowed and the pro rata share of the right holders in the shamlat was allotted to the right holders and their names were entered in the revenue records. This order was challenged by the Gram Panchayat through a writ petition No.1418 of 1986. Initially, the stay was granted in favour of the Gram Panchayat, but this writ petition was ultimately dismissed by a Single Judge of this court on March 2, 2007. Letters Patent Appeal and Special Leave Petition filed against the orders were also dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have been shown as owners of the share in the shamlat land as well at the time of re-partition. Letters Patent Appeal and Special Leave Petition filed against the orders were also dismissed. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have been shown as owners of the share in the shamlat land as well at the time of re-partition. They have further alienated this land in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and hence the present petition has been filed on the ground that share in the shamlat land could have come to the ownership of the petitioner on re-partition and not to respondent Nos.7 and 8, who were just occupancy tenants. 4. Notice of motion in this case was issued. Reply on behalf of the respondents is filed. The petitioner had not placed on record the earlier order passed in the year 1985 and also the orders passed in the writ petition, Letters Patent Appeal and Special Leave Petition earlier filed. Respondents have placed on record the said judgments, where the petitioner was also a party. On re-partition, the land was given to respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the year 1985. This was the order which Gram Panchayat had challenged, but had remained unsuccessful. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made a futile attempt to urge that the order under challenge in the writ petition was where the re-partition of the land was challenged by the Gram Panchayat. As per the counsel, the petitioner has now challenged the order on the ground that share in the shamlat could not have gone to the occupancy tenants. Despite pointed query, the counsel could not show the order or date thereof which was under challenge in the present writ petition. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents would contend that present writ petition is nothing but another challenge to the same order of re-partition, which has been up-held upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The counsel for the petitioner could not show any order which was under challenge. Rather, he prayed for time to place on record the order which the petitioner would wish to challenge. There is no order after the repartition which was directed in the year 1985. Earlier, the petitioner was the one who had contested the order of re-partition and the same was up-held. Rather, he prayed for time to place on record the order which the petitioner would wish to challenge. There is no order after the repartition which was directed in the year 1985. Earlier, the petitioner was the one who had contested the order of re-partition and the same was up-held. If the petitioner intending to make any challenge on the ground that share in the shamlat cannot be given to the occupancy tenant, who has acquired the ownership right, he was required to challenge the same earlier. At this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be heard in this regard. It appears that the petitioner is only wanting to raise a challenge to an order passed in the year 1985 after lapse of almost 22 years. Thus, no case for interfere either on merits or otherwise is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ----------------