JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J.: (Oral) - The petitioners filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) seeking title in the land measuring 64 kanals 1 marla. It was stated by them that they are residents of village Rajpura, Block and Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala and being the co-sharers are entitled to retain above said land forming part of the Shamlat Deh land. It was further stated that the land was Banjar Qadim in the year 1954 and was not used for common purposes. 2. After notice, reply was filed by the Gram Panchayat wherein it was stated that the petitioners are not bonafide residents of the village and the Gram Panchayat had been using the land in dispute for common purposes of the village. It was also stated that the petitioners were not in possession of the land as on 26.1.1950. 3. Both the parties led elaborate evidence. The Collector noted that the petitioners came in possession for the first time in the year 1974-75. It was so said by taking note of copies of the jamabandi on record. It was also observed that mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat more than three decades ago and it was never challenged. Petitioners’ application was dismissed on 17.9.2007. They went in appeal which was also dismissed on 12.12.2008. Relevant portion of the order dated 12.12.2008 reads thus:- “On perusing the written arguments of the respondents and examining the appeal filed by the appellants and record file, I am reached on this conclusion that the name of the father of appellant Nos.1 to 3 first time, does come in the column of cultivator in Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 as Gairmarusi and in column No.9, there is mention of chakota fee of Rs.600/- per bigha total Rs.600/- and nagar panchayat is entered in the column of ownership. Prior to this, the name of their father does not come in any jamabandis. As per jamabandi for the year 1979-80, 1984-85, 1989-90 the owner of the land in dispute is Nagar Panchayat. In the column of cultivation, Hazara Singh is entered as gairmarusi and in column No.9, the entry is of bila lagan illegal possession. The names of Appellant Nos. As per jamabandi for the year 1979-80, 1984-85, 1989-90 the owner of the land in dispute is Nagar Panchayat. In the column of cultivation, Hazara Singh is entered as gairmarusi and in column No.9, the entry is of bila lagan illegal possession. The names of Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 has first time come along with Appellant Nos.1 to 3 in Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 as illegal occupiers and in the column of ownership, the entry is Nagar Panchayat. As per Jamabandi for the year 1962-63, nagar panchayat deh is in the column of cultivator and in the column cultivator, raqba braruye aamdani of nagar panchayat is entered. In the year 1948-49, in the column of ownership, the entry is shamlat deh. Likewise, appellant Nos.1 to 3 have come into possession according to Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 and appellant Nos. 4 to 6 have come in the year 1994-95. They have illegal possession. The appellants admit in sub para 3 of Para 5 of the appeal that this land was banjar qadim on 9.1.1954. If the land was banjar qadim, then how there can be their possession. Consequently, the appellants failed to prove their possession since before 26.1.1950. The appellants did not approach the lower Court within the stipulated period. According to record, the appellants have taken this on lease. According to law, the leaseholder cannot claim ownership of the land taken on lease. The mutation entered in favour of the gram panchayat was not challenged in any court. Hence, this land does fall in gram panchayat and the gram panchayat is its owner. Therefore, I dismiss the appeal by keeping the order of the lower Court upheld.” 4. It was noticed that land was taken on lease by the petitioners and it was so reflected in the revenue record. It was further stated that the petitioners have failed to prove their possession before 26.1.1950. 5. Once the petitioners have taken land on lease, they were estopped to lay challenge to the ownership rights of the Gram Panchayat. Furthermore, after expiry of the lease period, their possession become unauthorized. By dragging the Gram Panchayat in litigation, they are continuing in possession. Before us also, counsel for the petitioners failed to show any perversity in the order under challenge. 6. Dismissed.