ORDER 1. These appeals are filed by the Gram Panchayat, Naulakha, questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned order made by the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant Gram Panchayat made an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") seeking possession of the land in question claiming it to be "shamilat deh". Respondents 2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No. 675 of 1999 and Respondent 4 in Civil Appeal No. 676 of 1999 made applications under Section 11 of the Act claiming title and interest over the lands in question contending that those lands have not vested in the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, having considered the respective contentions of the parties and after considering the material that was placed before him as evidence in support of the respective claims, passed the order on 31-1-1985 dismissing the application made by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act and allowing the applications filed by the aforementioned respondents under Section 11 of the Act. The a Gram Panchayat, being aggrieved and not satisfied with the said order of the Collector, filed appeal before the Joint Director, Panchayats, exercising powers of a Commissioner (for short "the Commissioner"). The said appeals were allowed by the Commissioner, disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Collector, accepting the claim of the Gram Panchayat and, at the same time, rejecting the claim made by the private respondents. The respondents aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner filed writ petitions before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, by a detailed and well-considered order, allowed the writ petitions upsetting the order passed by the Commissioner and restoring the order made by the Collector. The Gram Panchayat filed letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court calling in question the correctness of the order made by the C learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court did not find any good ground or valid reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals. Hence, these appeals by the Gram Panchayat. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that once the entries were. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals. Hence, these appeals by the Gram Panchayat. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that once the entries were. found in the jamabandis for the years 1948-49 and 1951-52 as "shamilat deh" in respect of the land, the Collector ought not to have dismissed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act. According to him, the Appellate Authority, namely, the Commissioner, was right in reversing the order passed by the Collector accepting the claim of the Gram Panchayat; the learned Single Judge was not right in reversing e the finding recorded by the Commissioner as an Appellate Authority. According to him, unfortunately, the Division Bench also did not properly appreciate the legal position advanced on behalf of the appellant. 4. In opposition, the learned counsel for the private respondents made submissions supporting the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for f the parties. It may be stated here itself that before the learned Single Judge, the appellant did not file any counter-affidavit or written statement to the writ petitions. The Collector, looking to the material placed on record and after considering the effect of entries made in jamabandis for various years, concluded that the claim of the Gram Panchayat made under Section 7 of the Act was untenable. The learned Single Judge has extracted, in his order, the g relevant portion of the order of the Collector wherein it is stated that in the jamabandi for the year 1951-52 (Exhibit A-17), the disputed land is shown as "banjar qadim" and in the column of "cultivation", the entry is shown as "makbuza malkan". It was also shown to be in the possession of the owners. A reference is made to the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in 1984 Punj LJ 17, according to which the land does not h come within the definition of "shamilat deh". The Collector also took into ocnsideration jamabandis for the year 1948-49, Samvat 1996-97, Sam vat 1992-93 andjamabandi for the year 1955-56, besides other documents. A reference is made to the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in 1984 Punj LJ 17, according to which the land does not h come within the definition of "shamilat deh". The Collector also took into ocnsideration jamabandis for the year 1948-49, Samvat 1996-97, Sam vat 1992-93 andjamabandi for the year 1955-56, besides other documents. The Commissioner, in appeal, set aside the order of the Collector, as already stated above, stating that the respondents failed to establish their ownership over the property in question and forgetting that the claim of the Gram Panchayat made under Section 7 of the Act had to be established by it by cogent evidence. The learned Single Judge has noticed, in the order, that the Commissioner, in appeal, did not take into consideration the effect of the decree passed by the civil court. In the civil suit filed by the respondents, it was established that the land was never used for common purposes by the Gram Panchayat and that it was rather in possession of the respondents prior to 1950. As regards this decree of the civil court, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Gram Panchayat was not a party to the suit and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit as per Section 13 of the Act. The learned Single Judge has made observation about the said decree in his order. If the decree was suffering from any infirmity, it was for the Gram Panchayat to have challenged its correctness but so long as the decree was available on record, it ought to have been considered. In our view, the learned Single Judge was right in observing that the Commissioner failed to take into consideration the effect of the said decree. It is also clear from the record that in none of the entries in the revenue records, the land in question is shown as "shamilat deh". One entry for the year 1951-52 wherein the land was shown as "shamilat deh" has been set aside by the Assistant Collector on 15-6-1964 vide Mutation No. 493. As reflected in the order of the Collector, there is no other entry which supports the case of the appellant. One entry for the year 1951-52 wherein the land was shown as "shamilat deh" has been set aside by the Assistant Collector on 15-6-1964 vide Mutation No. 493. As reflected in the order of the Collector, there is no other entry which supports the case of the appellant. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has observed that the Commissioner has noticedjamabandis for the years 1948-49, 1951-52, 195657 and 1959-60 but none of these entries show that the land in question was to be used for common purposes of the village so as to bring it within the definition of "shamilat deh". These are the findings of fact recorded by the Collector, accepted by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench on the material placed on record. When the Gram Panchayat failed to establish that the lands in question were "shamilat deh" , the claim under Section 7 of the Act was rightly rejected by the Collector. The Division Bench of the High Court was right and justified in affirming the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the Commissioner. In this view, we find no merit in these appeals. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. 6. No costs.