JUDGMENT SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 29.8.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 15748 of 2010) filed by the appellant, challenging the orders dated 16.2.2009 and 28.5.2010 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala; and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, SAS Nagar (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), respectively, was dismissed. Though there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 68-LPA of 2012) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits, and gone through the revenue record annexed with the writ petition, the orders passed by the revenue authorities under the Act as well as the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. In the present case, on a petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, Village Karhali, Block Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), vide order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the Collector, the appellant was ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute, measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas. In appeal, the said order was upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 28.5.2010. The appellant had opposed the eviction petition filed against her on the ground that the Gram Panchayat exchanged the disputed land measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas with her land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 24//11 (3-0) and 20 (2-15). It was the further case of the appellant that the said oral exchange, which had taken place on the basis of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, was duly reflected in the revenue record. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act before the authorities, the appellant filed a title suit under Section 11 of the Act before the Collector, which was subsequently dismissed in default. The Collector, while ordering eviction of the appellant from the land in dispute, did not accept the plea of the appellant that she had exchanged her land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas with the land measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, while ordering eviction of the appellant from the land in dispute, did not accept the plea of the appellant that she had exchanged her land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas with the land measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The Commissioner affirmed this finding of the Collector. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant again raised the issue of exchange and argued that in view of the said exchange, which had taken place in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, possession of the appellant could not be said to be illegal and unauthorised, therefore, no ejectment order could have been passed against her. The learned Single Judge rejected the said contention, while observing as under :- “The reliance on the exchange on the basis of the resolution of the Panchayat passed on 21.3.1986, would be of no avail to the petitioner as said resolution of the Panchayat would have no legal value as this exchange was never sent or approved by the competent authority. In the resolution, Annexure P-3, it is clearly recorded that it be sent to competent authority for according approval for the exchange of land. No such approval, however, was ever granted. In this regard, reference can be made to Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, which reads as under:- “5. Exchange of land [5 and 15 (2) (f) of the Act] : A Panchayat, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village may, with the prior approval of the Government transfer any land in shamlat deh by exchange with the land of an equivalent value. Provided that where the land is required, in connection with the Integrated Rural Development Programme sponsored by the Government, the Panchayat may, with the approval of the Collector transfer any land in shamlat deh by exchange with the land of an equivalent value.” This rule would clearly show that the exchange of the land is permissible only with the approval of the Government. Once the petitioner could not show this approval, the exchange of land on the basis of resolution would have no meaning.” Proviso was deleted by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) First Amendment Rules, 2008, vide Notification No. G.S.R.7/P.A.18/1961/S.15/Amd. (19)/2008 dated 16th January, 2008). Once the petitioner could not show this approval, the exchange of land on the basis of resolution would have no meaning.” Proviso was deleted by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) First Amendment Rules, 2008, vide Notification No. G.S.R.7/P.A.18/1961/S.15/Amd. (19)/2008 dated 16th January, 2008). The said order has been challenged in this appeal. In the revenue record, i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, the land in dispute measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas has been shown under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Only in the column of possession, name of the appellant is mentioned and that too as Billa Lagan Bawajah Tabadala Jabani'. Regarding 5 kanals 15 marlas of land, comprised in Khasra No. 24//11 (3-0) and 20 (2-15), the appellant has been recorded as owner of the same, but shown in the column of possession under the Gram Panchayat. Thus, from the said revenue record, it is clear that on the basis of the alleged exchange, the ownership was never exchanged. The second aspect of the matter is that vide the alleged exchange, in lieu of 5 kanals 15 marlas of land, the appellant got possession of 11 kanals 4 marlas of land, which was double in area. No explanation is coming forward as to how the appellant got double the land in the alleged exchange. It appears that a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat, may be in connivance with the appellant, as the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant was the Ex-Sarpanch of the village. But it is admitted position that before exchanging the land, the Gram Panchayat neither sought (nor granted) prior approval by the Government, which was a condition precedent for a valid exchange. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the legal requirement that as per the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, for transfer of any land by the Gram Panchayat to a third party, including by way of exchange, it is a condition precedent to take prior approval from the Government. However, learned counsel argued that the alleged oral exchange, which was based upon a resolution by the Gram Panchayat, is reflected in the revenue record, therefore, the appellant could not have been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute. This contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. However, learned counsel argued that the alleged oral exchange, which was based upon a resolution by the Gram Panchayat, is reflected in the revenue record, therefore, the appellant could not have been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute. This contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is undisputed position that in the revenue record, the Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner of the land measuring 11 kanals 4 marlas and the appellant is recorded as owner of 5 kanals 15 marlas of land. Only in the column of possession, their names are appearing vice versa, allegedly on the basis of an oral exchange. The title suit filed by the appellant has already been dismissed in default. Thus, in view of the said revenue entries, the appellant cannot be said to be owner of the land in question. Her possession on the land in dispute also cannot be said to be legal and authorised, because the alleged oral exchange was totally contrary to the statutory provisions. Without prior approval of the Government, no land of the Gram Panchayat can be transferred. It appears to us that by playing fraud upon the Gram Panchayat, a resolution was got passed for exchange of the land of the Gram Panchayat in lieu of half of the land, without any justification and reason. Mere passing of the resolution by the Gram Panchayat is not enough. Before effecting a valid transfer by way of exchange, prior approval of the Government is a condition precedent, which was never obtained in this case. Therefore, possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat taken by the appellant under the said oral exchange is totally illegal and unauthorised. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, 1985 PLJ 278 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Malkhani v. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, 2001 (1) PLJ 259 . Both these judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In Gurdial Singh's case (supra), the transfer made by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the Health Department of the State Government was held to be valid, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the formal approval from the Government was not obtained. Both these judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In Gurdial Singh's case (supra), the transfer made by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the Health Department of the State Government was held to be valid, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the formal approval from the Government was not obtained. In Smt. Malkhani's case (supra), sale of some land of the Gram Panchayat was made, upon which the purchaser constructed house and after 22 years, the Gram Panchayat tried to evict the purchaser. The ejectment application was dismissed while holding that the purchaser purchased the land after making full payment to the Gram Panchayat and acted on faith on the action of the Gram Panchayat and later on, the Gram Panchayat was estopped from challenging the validity of the possession of the purchaser. But in the present case, the appellant has not acted in good faith. Rather, it appears that a fraud was played with the Gram Panchayat and on the basis of an oral exchange, in the revenue record, the appellant got recorded her possession on 11 kanals 4 marlas of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat in lieu of her 5 kanals 15 marlas of land. Thus, in our opinion, the appellant was rightly ordered to be evicted from the disputed land, and we do not find any reason to interfere in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed.