Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The Gram Panchayat of village Hari Nagar Kherki, Tehsil and District Patiala, has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 31.10.1985 (Annexure P4) passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. l) by which 30 Kanals 10 Marias of land, which was taken out for common purposes and given to the Gram Panchayat was ordered to be given back to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, while invoking the provisions of Section 42 of the East Punjab (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (for short "the Act"). 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in the year 1958 the consolidation took place in village Hari Nagar Kherki, District Patiala. A scheme was prepared and confirmed under Section 19 and 20 of the Act. Misal Hqiat was prepared in the year 1959-60 and the land was given to the Gram Panchayat for its control and management. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were given a separate "Takk" in accordance with the Scheme and no objections were filed by the respondents with regard to giving of the land to the petitioner Gram Panchayat. The land given to the petitioner Gram Panchayat was to be used for common purposes of the inhabitants. 3. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application under Section 42 read with Section 43- A of the Act on 25.2.1985 before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. l),wherein it was prayed that the area comprised in Khasra Nos. 119 and 120 measuring 200 kanals 19 marlas be recorded in the name of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan instead of the name of the petitioner. Likewise the area comprised in Killa Nos. 71, 72, 64, 65 and 82, which is entered in the ownership of Gram Panchayat should have been recorded in the ownership of the present respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Thus, a prayer was made by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for correction of the revenue record. They further prayed that deficiency in the area be made good and the Scheme be modified to that extent, this application came up for adjudication before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. 1), who vide his order dated 31.10.1985 accepted the claim of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for correction of the revenue record. They further prayed that deficiency in the area be made good and the Scheme be modified to that extent, this application came up for adjudication before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. 1), who vide his order dated 31.10.1985 accepted the claim of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 with regard to the 30 kanals and 10 marlas of the land and the shortage was ordered to be made good from the "Kurra" of the Gram Panchayat. 4. Mr. Amarjit Markhan, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat has argued that consolidation of holdings in village Hari Nagar Kherki took place in the year 1958 and the Scheme under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act was prepared and confirmed in the year 1959-60. The application under Section 42 of the Act was filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, on 25.2.1985, i.e., after a gap ofi 25 years. It is contended that once the entire proceedings under the Act have been completed and once the Scheme had been prepared and confirmed and no objections were raised by the contesting respondents, then the application under Section 42 of the Act filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 after a gap of 25 years was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation itself. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Kakran v. Additional Director of Consolidation and Anr., 1997(2) P.L.J. 375. Mr. Markan has further contended that the land which was taken out for common purposes and given to the Gram Panchayat and which has been recorded as "Panchayat Deh" in the revenue record, was not .liable to be given back to the original landowners. It is contended that the land given to the Gram Panchayat was for common purposes and vests in the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Mr. It is contended that the land given to the Gram Panchayat was for common purposes and vests in the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Mr. Markan has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, (2003-2) 134 P.L.R. 658 (F.B), wherein it has been held that the land which has been reserved for common purposes, whether utilised or not shall vest with the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be even though in the column of ownership the entries may be Jumla Mushtarka Malkana Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arzi Khewat etc. On the basis of the aforementioned authorities, it is contended that the land having been vested in the Gram Panchayat and having been reserved for common purposes was not liable to be given to the original landowners. Still further it has been contended by Mr. Amarjit Markan that in the Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 and the subsequent Jamabandis the ownership of the Gram Panchayat has been recorded. 5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 6. Firstly, on the point of limitation, I find merit in the contention of Mr. Amarjit Markan to the effect that the petition under Section 42 of the Act could not be entertained after a lapse of more than 25 years. In the present case the consolidation of holdings in the area of the village took place in the year 1958, whereas the petition under Section 42 of the Act was filed on 25.2.1985, i.e., after more than 25 years. In Gram Panchayat Kakrans case (supra) the Apex Court has held that where an application is made under Section 42 of the Act after an inordinate delay, the same ought not be entertained. It has further been held that even where no period of limitation is prescribed, even then the aggrieved party is required to move the appropriate Authority for the relief within reasonable time. In the present case, once the consolidation proceedings had been completed in the year 1959-60 and the Scheme had also been prepared and implemented, then there was no reason as to why respondent Nos. In the present case, once the consolidation proceedings had been completed in the year 1959-60 and the Scheme had also been prepared and implemented, then there was no reason as to why respondent Nos. 2 to 4 should have waited for more than 25 years for filing a petition under Section 42 of the Act. Thus, the findings of the Director, Consolidation of Holidays, Punjab, are wholly erroneous. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not give any reason as to why they did not prefer an application under Section 42 of the Act earlier. Therefore, the application filed before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab under Section 42 of the Act ought to have been rejected. 7. Coming to the next point i.e., whether the land in the consolidation proceedings, which has been reserved for common purposes, could be given to the original landowners, it is clear form the judgment of the Full Bench in Jai Sighs case (supra) that all lands, which have been, as per consolidation scheme, reserved for common purposes, whether utilised or not, shall vest in the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, and shall not revert back to the original land lowers. In the present case, the land in dispute had been given to the Gram Panchayat in consolidation proceedings for common purposes and, therefore, was not liable to revert back to the original land lowers. 8. In view of the above, I allow the petition and set aside the order dated 31.10.1985 passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (Annexure P4) and dismiss the application under Section 42 read with Section 43-A of the Act, filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is ordered that the land in question shall remain with the Gram Panchayat.