JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. 1. The petitioner Gram Panchayat has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 12.11.1992 (P-3), vide which its application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short the Act), filed against respondent No. 3, was dismissed. Further challenge has been made to an order dated 31.3.1993 (P-4), dismissing its appeal filed against the above order. 2. As per facts on record, the Gram Panchayat, claiming ownership in land, measuring 14 kanals and 4 marlas, description of which is given in that application, filed an application under Section 7 of the Act, seeking ejectment of respondent No. 3, stating that he was in un-authorised occupation of that land. It was specific case of the Gram Panchayat that respondent No. 3 had been taking the land on lease. After expiry of the lease period, he failed to vacate possession of the land. 3. Upon notice, reply was filed. It was stated that respondent No. 3 was in possession of the land since before 1934-35. To say so, Jamabandi was placed on record. 4. Both the parties also led oral evidence. The Collector vide order dated 27.10.1989, dismissed application filed by the Gram Panchayat by simply stating that possession of respondent No. 3, over the land in dispute, is proved before 1934-35 and on account of that, application of the Gram Panchayat was dismissed. Plea of the Gram Panchayat, that respondent No. 3 had been taking the land on lease, was not discussed (sic) spite availability on record, of the copies of resolution for 5 years, showing leasing out of land to the respondent. 5. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 21.4.1992. A specific finding was given by the Appellate Authority that respondent No. 3 had failed to connect land, in his possession, with the land, shown in his possession, in Jamabandi for the year 1934-35. The order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was set aside and matter was remitted to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, to record a finding, whether the land in dispute relates to the land, which was shown in possession of respondent No. 3, in Jamabandi for the year 1934-35. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "I have carefully heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and have also carefully perused the record. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "I have carefully heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and have also carefully perused the record. From the perusal of the file, it is not proved as to which were the Khasra numbers of the land in dispute prior to the consolidation. For the decision of this case, it is necessary to find out as to in lieu of which old Khasra numbers, the present land in dispute has been allotted after consolidation. In these circumstances, the present appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat is accepted and the order under appeal is set aside and the case remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Dabwali with the direction that he would grant to Shri Sohan Lal, one opportunity of adducing evidence so that he may prove that the land in dispute has been allotted after consolidation in lieu of those old Khasra numbers which were under his possession. After recording the evidence adduced by Sohan Lal, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade would record his conclusion in this behalf and decide afresh the ejectment application filed by the Gram Panchayat. Both the parties are directed to appear in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Dabwali, on 7.5.1992." 6. It is an admitted fact that thereafter, not a single piece of evidence was led by respondent No. 3. The matter was again taken up by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and application of the Gram Panchayat was dismissed on 12.11.1992, by passing a non speaking order and without complying with directions, given by the Appellate Authority, in order dated 21.4.1992. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "After hearing both the parties, it becomes clear that the respondent Sohan Lal and prior to him, his father Mool Chand, has been in possession of this land since 1934-35. Ex. D-5 and 1968 PLJ 194 are sufficient evidence of the fact that the new Khasra numbers have been allotted in lieu of those old Khasra numbers which were in possession of the family of the respondent prior to consolidation. Ex. D-5 and 1968 PLJ 194 are sufficient evidence of the fact that the new Khasra numbers have been allotted in lieu of those old Khasra numbers which were in possession of the family of the respondent prior to consolidation. In this situation, the respondent is entitled to the protection of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Gram Panchayat (Regulation) Act, 1961 and he cannot be evicted and this application for ejectment is therefore, dismissed." Perusal of the order shows that it was passed contrary to the observation made by the Appellate Authority in order dated 21.4.1992. After remand, no evidence was led by respondent No. 3, to show that his possession relates back to the year 1934-35. 7. Without discussing any document on record, a finding was given that possession of the petitioner is protected as per the provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act. 8. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal, which was also dismissed on 31.3.1993, by simply stating that on perusal of record, possession of respondent No. 3 is proved 12 years prior to the date of commencement of the Act and on account of that, respondent No. 3 is entitled to get benefit of the provision of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act. 9. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat has vehemently contended that both the Authorities have committed an error in not giving any finding regarding taking the land in dispute on lease by respondent No. 3. Furthermore, there is no document to show that qua the land in dispute, the petitioner's possession relates back to before 26.1.1950. 10. To the contrary, Mr. Sharma has supported the findings given by both the Courts below. It is stated that since from the year 1934, the land is in possession of respondent No. 3. When asked to substantiate his arguments as to whether he could connect land in dispute, with the land, which was shown in possession of respondent No. 3, in Jamabandi for the year 1934-35, he failed to do so. 11. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that orders under challenge cannot be sustained. It is amply proved on record that respondent No. 3 had been taking the land on lease year after year. Above fact is supported by documents, Annexure P-5 to P-12. These documents reflect the proceedings vide which land was auctioned in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder. It is amply proved on record that respondent No. 3 had been taking the land on lease year after year. Above fact is supported by documents, Annexure P-5 to P-12. These documents reflect the proceedings vide which land was auctioned in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder. 12. We have seen photocopies of the original lease register. Signatures of respondent No. 3 are also available on record and tally with the signature on the lease register. Once land is taken on lease, the person in possession cannot deny title of the land owner i.e. the Gram Panchayat. 13. Be that as it may. Finding given by the Courts below that qua land in dispute, respondent No. 3 was in possession since from the year 1934-35, is also wrong. Vide order dated 21.4.1992, to give finding in that regard, matter was remitted to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade by the Appellate Authority. It was directed that one opportunity be given to respondent No. 3 to produce evidence so that he may prove that the land in dispute has been allotted to him after consolidation, in lieu of Khasra numbers, which were in his possession, as per Jamabandi for the year 1934-35. Thereafter, as per admitted position on record, not a single document was put on record by respondent No. 3. 14. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade again on the same evidence; which was discarded by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.4.1992, passed an order in favour of respondent No. 3, dismissing application filed by the Gram Panchayat. Even before this Court, there is no document on record to show that possession of the respondent No. 3, over the land in dispute, relates back to the year 1934-35. There is nothing on record to show that in lieu of land owned by the respondent No. 3, before consolidation, the land in dispute was allotted to him, after consolidation. In view of above finding, this writ petition is allowed. Orders under challenge dated 12.11.1992 (P-3) and 31.3.1993 (P-4) are set aside. Application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act is allowed and respondent No. 3 is ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. Petition allowed.