M.M.PUNCHHI, J. (1) LEAVE granted. (2) THE High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petition of the appellant in limine taking the view that it was highly belated belated because the appellate order of the Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab, which the appellant had impugned, was of 13/6/1989 and he had approached the High Court on 18/4/1991. Evidently there was no such delay which could have been viewed as "high" by the High Court especially when a bundle of documents had to be collected by the appellant to prove his case, importance of which can be gathered from what we observe on the merit of the matter. (3) THE appellant and before him his father, was a village artisan, a blacksmith. The village proprietary body had put his father in possession of a small piece of land out of the joint land termed as shamlet, belonging to the proprietary body. Revenue entries for the year 1944-45 clearly reveal that his father Munshi, son of Gulab Lohar was in possession of the land without payment of any rent to the proprietors for services rendered. On the demise of Munshi, his son the appellant stepped into his shoes. Since the appellant was in possession for more than 12 years before 22/4/1961 when the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 came into force and that too without payment of rent or any other charges exceeding the land revenue, his possession was statutorily protected. Still the Panchayat clamoured for possession of the land from him but it failed in their effort when moving an application under Section 7(1) of the said Act before the Collector, Roopnagar. Rejecting the claim of the Panchayat the Collector held that the appellant could remain in possession of the land as long as it was put to cultivation. The land comprised is in three survey numbers. The Panchayat seemingly was satisfied insofar as two survey numbers were concerned. It was aggrieved qua decision relating to Khasra No. 79 (0 kanals - 16 marlas). It maintained that it ceased to be in cultivating possession of the appellant because it was described as "gair mumkin bara". The Appellate Officer, on appeal by the Panchayat held that the appellant could not retain possession over Khasra No. 79 as it had ceased to be cultivated and therefore ordered eviction, to which order the High Court has refused to interfere. The Appellate Officer, on appeal by the Panchayat held that the appellant could not retain possession over Khasra No. 79 as it had ceased to be cultivated and therefore ordered eviction, to which order the High Court has refused to interfere. (4) THE above reasoning does not appeal to us. Descriptively land mentioned as "gair mumkin bara" does not reflect that the land has altogether ceased to be agricultural. Baras are often allotted or maintained to serve purposes subservient to agriculture. It was never disputed that it was the appellant who remained in possession of Khasra No. 79 and, if that is so, on the mere nicety that the land was not actually shown to be put to plough, the Panchayat in these circumstances could not have been permitted to take it back especially in view of the long preceding tenure of the appellant and his father. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court as also that of the Additional Director, Panchayats dated 13/6/1989 and restore the orders of the Collector, Roopnagar dated 29/8/1986. The appeal is thus allowed. No costs.