Judgment Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 13097-CWP of 2013 Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Document (Annexure R13) is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No. 5222 of 2012 Petitioner is in possession of 31 kanals 4 marlas of land. As per jamabandi for the year 1960-61, land was entered as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Shajra Nasab in the ownership column and is in possession of the Gram Panchayat. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's name figured in the revenue record, in the column of cultivation, only in jamabandi for the year 1972-73 and then in the jamabandi for the year 1982-83. In between one Rachhpal Singh was shown in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. It is also proved on record that the petitioner entered in possession of the land after getting it on lease from the Gram Panchayat. Lease amount is also mentioned in the relevant column of the revenue record/jamabandis. After taking the land on lease, the petitioner has dragged the Gram Panchayat in an unethical litigation which is continuing from the last more than two decades. Admittedly, he is not owner of the land in dispute and for his unauthorized occupation, he has not paid even a single penny to the Gram Panchayat towards use and occupation of that land. In a very clever and clandestine manner, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 claiming title in the land in dispute being resident of the village. It is specifically stated that the Gram Panchayat is not owner of the land, which is subject matter of this litigation. The application filed on 1.3.2001 was dismissed by the Collector on 9.2.2004. The petitioner went in appeal which was also dismissed on 8.3.2005. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 7546 of 2006, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.3.2009. He succeeded in appeal when Letters Patent Appeal No. 403 of 2009 was allowed by this Court on 20.1.2010. Relevant portion of the order, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, reads thus:- “4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the original Jamabandi for the year 1960-61, land was shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Shijra Rasad (common land of proprietors). Thereafter, in 1967-68, land was shown as being owned by Panchayat. Relevant portion of the order, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, reads thus:- “4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the original Jamabandi for the year 1960-61, land was shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Shijra Rasad (common land of proprietors). Thereafter, in 1967-68, land was shown as being owned by Panchayat. Change in the said entry took place without mentioning any reason why the said change was done. The appellant was never inducted as tenant and these objections were required to be considered by the Commissioner i.e. the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Act. It is also submitted that the land was Banjar Qadim at the relevant time, in which case it could not vest in the Panchayat. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Gurjant Singh Vs. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, 2000 (2) PLR 347 to submit that change to entry required adjudication. The above submissions are not shown to have duly considered by the Commissioner in the impugned order.” The orders, referred to above, were quashed and the matter was remitted to the Collector to decide it afresh. The Collector, vide order dated 15.11.2010, again dismissed application filed by the petitioner. Before passing that order, both the parties were again given an opportunity to bring on record necessary documents. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Collector on 15.11.2010 reads thus:- “After perusal of the record and hearing the arguments of both the sides I have reached the conclusion that the applicant has failed to prove that he has been continuing in individual and cultivable possession of the share of the Shamlat land prior to 26/1/1950. The record which the applicant has produced, according to that, Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute and according to Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, the land in dispute has been shown as Shamlat Deh, Hasab Rasad Shajra Nasab and according to Jamabandi for the year 1961-62, Ex.P5 the ownership is of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Shajra Nasab and in the column of cultivation self cultivation of Nagar Panchayat has been mentioned. Similar entries are shown in the Misal Haqiat for 1960-61. According to Jamabandi 1967-68, Ex.P5, Nagar Panchayat is shown in the column of ownership and in the owner of cultivation, self cultivation of Nagar Panchayat. Similar entries are shown in the Misal Haqiat for 1960-61. According to Jamabandi 1967-68, Ex.P5, Nagar Panchayat is shown in the column of ownership and in the owner of cultivation, self cultivation of Nagar Panchayat. According to Jamabandi 1972-73 Ex.P9, the applicant is shown as cultivator for the first time and in the column No. 9, Rs.80/- per annum per killa is mentioned. In the subsequent jamabandi for the year 1977-78 Ex.P10 in the column of cultivation, Rachhpal Singh son of Bahadar Singh is mentioned and in the column No. 9, lease is mentioned. According to Jamabandis 1982-83, 1987-88, 1992-93, 1997-98, similar entries are regarding the applicant and in column No. 9, Chakota is mentioned. Besides this, the lease register produced by the Gram Panchayat as Ex.R1 to Ex.R6, the land in dispute was being taken by the applicant. In this regard a Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2000(2) PLJ 569 has clearly held that a lessee cannot challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Besides this the mutation of land was sanctioned 40/42 years ago in favour of the Gram Panchayat which has never been challenged by any person in any competent Court. In this regard, a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 656 has clearly held that if such mutation has not been challenged under the provisions of the Revenue Act, such mutations becomes final. The entries in the revenue record carry a presumption of truth. Shamlat deh land has been defined clearly in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, that in what circumstances the land is not to be considered as Shamlat. The applicant has failed to prove that his case is covered by any of the exception of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.” It was noticed by the Collector that the land was entered as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Shajra Nasab. Nagar Panchayat was shown in possession of the land in dispute. Those entries were also reflected in Missal Hakiat which was prepared at the time of consolidation proceedings in the year 1960-61. It was further noticed that the petitioner came into possession of the land in dispute, after taking it on lease from the Gram Panchayat. To say so, copies of resolutions, passed in that regard, were brought on record as Annexures R1 to R6. It was further noticed that the petitioner came into possession of the land in dispute, after taking it on lease from the Gram Panchayat. To say so, copies of resolutions, passed in that regard, were brought on record as Annexures R1 to R6. The petitioner went in appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 11.11.2011. Hence, this writ petition. It is grievance of the petitioner that the Courts below have failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 403 of 2009, which was allowed on 20.1.2010. It is stated that it was requisite for the Collector to give a finding as to whether Banjar Qadim land vest in the Gram Panchayat or not unless it is shown in the revenue record to be used for common purpose. Further contention of counsel for the petitioner is that without framing issues, the question of title has been denied. On 21.8.2013, counsel for the respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat sought time to place on record a copy of Wajib-ul-Arz, which was prepared at the time of consolidation proceedings in the year 1960- 61. By moving an application, copy of that document has been placed on record. Authenticity of that document has not been controverted by counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat has vehemently contended that once it is proved on record that the petitioner has taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, unless he vacates possession of the land, he cannot question title of the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that on this score alone, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that for the last more than two decades, the petitioner is continuing in possession of the land in dispute without making payment of any rent and he has unnecessarily entangled the Gram Panchayat in this litigation. It is further stated that dispute regarding non-framing of issues was not raised before the Appellate Court. Further, it is averred that perusal of the order passed by the Collector makes it very clear that the authorities were alive to each and every question in dispute, in between the parties. We are not inclined to interfere at the instance of the petitioner. An individual, who has taken the land on lease, is estopped to challenge title of the landlord. We are not inclined to interfere at the instance of the petitioner. An individual, who has taken the land on lease, is estopped to challenge title of the landlord. It is admitted position that since for the last more than two decades, after taking the land on lease, the petitioner is enjoying the same unauthorizedly without making payment of any rent to the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has brought on record documents (Annexures R1 to R6) to show that the land was taken on lease by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to rebut those documents. In the jamabandis also, the petitioner is shown as lessee. After taking the land on lease, it is not open for the tenant to question title of the landlord. On this score alone, this writ petition can be dismissed. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that since nature of the land is shown as Banjar Qadim in the revenue record and not used for common purpose, it will not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Perusal of copy of Wajib-ul-Arz prepared in the year 1960-61 makes it very clear that at the time of consolidation proceedings, the entire Shamlat Deh land measuring 973 kanals 7 marlas was put under management and control of the Gram Panchayat. It is further mentioned that arrangements regarding cultivation of the land will be done by the Gram Panchayat and income, so realized, will be used for the purpose of development in the village. It is necessary to mention here that the above land was not kept separate by imposing cut on the right holders at the time of consolidation proceedings. The land was continuously shown as above before the consolidation also. It was further said that in the Shamlat Deh land, right holders and non-proprietors shall have right to graze their cattle. The above said facts are evident from Item Nos. 1 & 2 of the Wajib-ul-Arz. In the face of the provision of the Wajib-ul-Arz, which is a part of revenue record, it cannot be said that the land was not being used for common purpose. Right holders and non-proprietors have equal right to graze their cattle and the Gram Panchayat was authorized to manage and control the Shamlat Deh land. The petitioner's contention that issues were not framed, has no legs to stand. Right holders and non-proprietors have equal right to graze their cattle and the Gram Panchayat was authorized to manage and control the Shamlat Deh land. The petitioner's contention that issues were not framed, has no legs to stand. No doubt, ordinarily the authorities are supposed to frame issues as per pleadings of the parties and then decide a lis between them. In the present case, the Collector was alive to the issues with which he was dealing. Elaborate discussion was made regarding dispute between the parties. The question was only with regard to title of the land. No further issue needs to be framed in this case. That issue has been discussed in detail in the order under challenge. Once it is proved on record that as per Wajib-ul-Arz i.e. land was kept as grazing ground, the Gram Panchayat was also authorized to manage it and raise income to be spent for development purpose, no title can be claimed by the petitioner. In the Wajib-ul-Arz, there is no provision that land can be partitioned amongst the right holders. No case is made out to cause interference by this Court. Dismissed.