JUDGMENT : Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.:- The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 31.3.1992 and 22.7.1991 passed by the Collector, Faridabad and the Assistant Collector, Faridabad, respectively, ordering their eviction and dismissing their appeals. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and before them their predecessors, are recorded, in possession as tenants on payment of rent for the last more than 35 years. A perusal of the jamabandi for the year 1954-55 reveals that the petitioners’ father Udhmi Ram son of Bikhan son of Ram Sukh, is recorded as “Gair Marausi” on payment of `chakota’ of Rs.54/- with respect to 79K-8M of land. The entry is repeated in all subsequent jamabandis as well as in the khasra girdawaris. The petitioners, being tenants and not unauthorised occupants, cannot be evicted under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as a relationship of landlord and tenants subsists between the parties, the petitioners can only be evicted by filing a suit for possession. Even if it is held that the petitioners are not tenants, their possession has to be protected under Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act. 3. Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the petitioners are neither tenants nor lessees of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have not been able to produce any pattanama or lease deed, much less are they able to refer to any payment of ‘chakota’ (rent) to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners are unauthorised occupants, who are taking advantage of wrong entries in the jamabandis and have remained in unauthorised possession of a large parcel of land for the last more than 50 years. The impugned orders holding that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants, are legal and valid and do not call for interference. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders, the relevant revenue record and after a thoughtful consideration of the arguments, are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders or grant any relief to the petitioners. 5. The Gram Panchayat-respondent no.3, filed an eviction petition, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Faridabad, seeking the petitioners’ eviction, from land measuring, 79K-8M. 5. The Gram Panchayat-respondent no.3, filed an eviction petition, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Faridabad, seeking the petitioners’ eviction, from land measuring, 79K-8M. The petitioners contested the application for eviction by pleading that they are tenants (Gair Marausi) on payment of ‘chakota’ for the last 35 years and, therefore, cannot be evicted under Section 7 of the Act. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade examined the entire matter and after considering that there was no lease deed/pattanama or any evidence of payment of any rent to the Gram Panchayat, much less the ‘chakota’ of Rs.54/- recorded in the jamabandi, held that the petitioners have failed to prove their tenancy under the Gram Panchayat, ordered their eviction and imposed a fine of Rs.400/-per acre, per year. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal. The District Collector, Faridabad, dismissed the appeal on 31.3.1992 by holding that the petitioners have not been able to produce any evidence that they had ever taken the land on patta or on lease from the Gram Panchayat and are, even otherwise, are not protected by Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act as they were not in possession 12 years before the enactment of the 1961 Act. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The question that calls for an answer is whether the petitioners are tenants or unauthorised occupants of Gram Panchayat land? A perusal of the jamabandi for the year 1954-55, reveals that the petitioners are recorded in possession as “Gair Marausi” on payment of `chakota’ (rent) at Rs.54/- per harvest. The entry would be incontrovertible evidence of their tenancy only if it is supported by a resolution by the Gram Panchayat, creating a tenancy or a pattanama or a lease deed. The petitioners have not placed any such evidence on record and do not even dare to assert a resolution, a lease deed or a pattanama, passed/executed by the Gram Panchayat. This apart, the petitioners have not produced any evidence that they ever paid any rent to the Gram Panchayat. The entry in the revenue record is a fiscal entry that neither confers nor divests a party of title or status and, therefore, in the absence of any evidence of a resolution, a pattanama, a lease deed or payment or rent, stood rebutted. The entry in the revenue record is a fiscal entry that neither confers nor divests a party of title or status and, therefore, in the absence of any evidence of a resolution, a pattanama, a lease deed or payment or rent, stood rebutted. The petitioners, in our considered opinion, appear to be taking advantage of a wrong entry in the revenue record and, therefore, are not entitled to assert their status as tenants. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioners were not even able to refer to any receipt or any payment to the Gram Panchayat since 1954. The judgment in Sham Lal versus The Union territory Chandigarh and others 1977 PLJ 509 (P&H), relied by the petitioners, in support of their plea, that a tenant is not an unauthorised occupant and, therefore, cannot be evicted under Section 7 of the Act, does not apply to the present case as the petitioners have not produced evidence of their tenancy, namely, a pattanama/a lease deed, a resolution of the Gram Panchayat or even any evidence to prove payment of `chakota’ of Rs.54/- per harvest, to the Gram Panchayat. 8. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below are affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————