JUDGMENT : Jasbir Singh, J. This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWPs No. 14786 of 1992 and 8289 of 1996, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. To dictate the order, facts are being taken from CWP No. 14786 of 1992. 2. Respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), seeking ejectment of the petitioner from land measuring 72 Bighas and 7 Biswas. Detail of the land is available on page 24 of the paper book (P-12). 3. After notice, reply was filed by the petitioner wherein it was averred that the disputed land was Muslim Property, he had taken possession after partition of the country and made improvements thereupon by spending huge amount. It was further stated that he had cultivated only 12 Bighas and 17 Biswas of land and his possession relates back to 26.1.1950. 4. The Collector, after looking into evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the land in dispute is ownership of the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner has been taking that land on lease against valid receipts. Those receipts are available on record as Annexures P-9 to P-11. The Collector vide order dated 28.3.1989, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute. 5. The petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 26.8.1992. Relevant portion of the order reads thus :- "Both the parties have given written arguments in respect of their pleas. The main plea taken by the appellant is that in 1979-80, the appellant was in possession of the land without payment of any rent although the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and since then he has been continuing possession and is statutory tenant, he, therefore, cannot be ejected from the land in dispute. On the other hand, the Gram Panchayat in their written arguments has stated that it is a shamlat land and has been property of Panchayat and was being given on yearly rent from time to time. However, in the year 1979-80, the appellant has been recorded to be in possession only on payment of Rs. 1760/-as rent for the land and from then onwards has been in possession as a Chakotedar of the land. Even prior to that in 1967-68, he was paying Chakota fixed from time to time. However, in the year 1979-80, the appellant has been recorded to be in possession only on payment of Rs. 1760/-as rent for the land and from then onwards has been in possession as a Chakotedar of the land. Even prior to that in 1967-68, he was paying Chakota fixed from time to time. Another plea taken by the appellant is that the land is Muslim Property and, therefore, the Panchayat has no jurisdiction to eject him as the land is evacuee shamlat land. This plea is also tenable in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in a writ reported in 1985 PLJ 463 that the land vest in the Panchayat. Considering all these facts, the appellant has no claim whatsoever on the land in dispute and has been correctly ejected from the land by the Collector. There is no reason to interfere with the lower Court order and the appeal is rejected." 6. Before the Appellate Authority, it was admitted by the petitioner that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and he had been taking it on lease. 7. It was his further case that due to his long possession, he had become 'statutory tenant', as such, his ejectment cannot be ordered. 8. The Appellate Authority, after considering evidence on record, rightly came to a conclusion that the land is a 'Shamlat Deh land' and is owned by the Gram Panchayat. 9. It is also so reflected in Jamabandis Annexures P-1 to P-6 on record. In the ownership column, the Gram Panchayat is shown as owner and against column No. 9, the petitioner is shown in possession against rent. 10. There is nothing on record to prove that the petitioner's possession relates back to 26.1.1950, as alleged by him. No document has been brought on record to prove that fact. Once it is proved on record that the petitioner has taken the land on lease, it is not open to him to deny, title of the landlord. 11. So far as the second CWP No. 8289 of 1996 is concerned, the petitioner has impugned orders, vide which he was directed to pay mesne profits for use and occupation of the land in dispute. 11. So far as the second CWP No. 8289 of 1996 is concerned, the petitioner has impugned orders, vide which he was directed to pay mesne profits for use and occupation of the land in dispute. When order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner on 28.3.1989, the Gram Panchayat filed an application on 13.12.1991, with a prayer that the petitioner be directed to pay mesne profits, for use and occupation of the land in dispute. Total amount was assessed as Rs. 4,12,300/-. That application was allowed by the competent authority on 11.11.1992. 12. It was again reiterated that the land in dispute is ownership of the Gram Panchayat and was taken on lease by the petitioner. 13. The petitioner went in appeal against that order, which was dismissed on 31.1.1996. 14. At the time of arguments, it was admitted by the petitioner that he had taken the land on lease in auction. Taking note of above facts, an amount of Rs. 4,12,300/-was assessed against the petitioner towards use and occupation charges. 15. At no point of time, the petitioner filed any application under Section 11 of the Act, to claim ownership of the land in dispute. Once order of ejectment has become final against him, he is bound to pay the mesne profits for use and occupation of the land in dispute. 16. Amount of rent assessed is also on the lower side. Even after passing of order, to pay mesne profits in the year 1992, the petitioner has not paid a single penny to the Gram Panchayat. He is in unauthorised occupation of more than 72 Bighas of land. 17. The Gram Panchayat would also be at liberty to realise amount for the period after passing of the above said order. The Gram Panchayat could not recover that amount because dispossession of the petitioner was stayed by this Court in the present case, on 11.11.1992. No case is made out to interfere in the orders impugned. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.