JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, J (Oral) : CM No.4818 of 2011 Application is allowed. Document Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Costs deposited on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents. CWP No.17481 of 2009 This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure P-1), passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal, order dated 15.4.2008 Annexure P- 2, passed by Collector, Kaithal-respondent No.2 and order dated 15.10.2008 Annexure P-3, passed by Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. 2. An application was filed by the private respondents, who are inhabitants of the village under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana, with the plea that the petitioners are in unauthorised possession of the land measuring 12 marlas. The land is to be utilised as a Johar. However, the petitioners have collected building material thereupon. 3. Vide order dated 16.10.2007 Annexure P-1, the petitioners have been held to be in unauthorised possession while taking into account the nishan dehi report (demarcation report) dated 7.4.2007. It has been held that the land comprising Khasra No.60 is in the shape of Gair Mumkin Johar. 4. The order dated 16.10.2007 Annexure P-1 has been upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.4.2008 Annexure P-2. It is recorded in the order dated 15.4.2008 Annexure P-2 that with police help, the possession of land has been given to Gram Panchayat on 18.12.2007. It is further recorded that the adjoining land is a path and is being used for common purposes. A wall has been constructed by the petitioners, which is impeding common use of the land. It has also been recorded that the suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioners has been dismissed vide order dated 23.3.2007. This fact also supports the case of the respondent. The order further mentions that the petitioners have not been able to produce any evidence to indicate old possession. The petitioners have not been able to show their title over the land. The order has been upheld by the Revisional Authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has only contended that the possession over the land is old and therefore, the orders are illegal. 6. The petitioners have not been able to show their title over the land. The order has been upheld by the Revisional Authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has only contended that the possession over the land is old and therefore, the orders are illegal. 6. This Court is not convinced with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, in so much as the impugned order indicates that the land is a Gair Mumkin Johar. The land is required to be used for the common purposes. The orders have been passed while relying on relevant material as noted above and therefore, do not call for judicial review in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------