Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2621 (PNJ)

Rama Sarup v. State of Haryana

2006-07-07

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, S.S.SARON

body2006
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J. - This order will dispose of the above writ petitions as challenge is to the same orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (1961 Act for short). 2. The respective petitioners in these six petitions assail the following orders :- (1) The order dated 27.9.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Charkhi Dadri (respondent No. 4); (2) The order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the Collector, Bhiwani (respondent No. 3); (3) The order dated 1.5.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 2); and (4) The order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 2) on a review petition holding that there is no power to review under the Act. CWP No. 19211/2004 : The petitioners in this writ petition are residents of Village Kari Adu, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. It is their case that they are co- sharers and right-holders of the land in the village and being co-sharers and right-holders they are owners of various parcels of land. 3. The petitioners Ram Sarup etc. (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) claim that they are owners in possession of land measuring 88 kanals 5 marlas comprised in khewat No. 69/67, Khatauni No. 83 and they have been cultivating the said land from time immemorial of their forefathers till date. The previous Khewat No. of the land comprised in khewat No. 69/67 of this land was 37/28 as shown in the jamabandi for the year 1928 A.D. The entries in the column of ownership are recorded as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. It is alleged that the said entries obviously show that the ownership of this Khewat was joint and Surja son of Kheta, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was shown owner in possession of the said land as co-sharer of the village in proportion to his share in the joint land. The same entries of the land, it is stated, were repeated in Jamabandis for the years 1936-37, 1940-41, 1944-45, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61, 1967-68, 1972-73 and 1977-78. Out of the said Jamabandis the extract copies of Jamabandis for the year 1928, 1936-37, 1956-57, 1967-68 and 1977-78 have been attached as Annexures P-1 to P-5. The same entries of the land, it is stated, were repeated in Jamabandis for the years 1936-37, 1940-41, 1944-45, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61, 1967-68, 1972-73 and 1977-78. Out of the said Jamabandis the extract copies of Jamabandis for the year 1928, 1936-37, 1956-57, 1967-68 and 1977-78 have been attached as Annexures P-1 to P-5. The consolidation in the Village Kari Adu took place in the year 1980 and during consolidation of holdings Shamilat Deh land of Khasra No. 152/18B-7B, 153/0B-18B was converted into land measuring 88 kanals 5 marlas, killa No. 58/9/2, 10, 11, 12/1, 20, 21; killa No. 59//6, 13/2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18/1 in 1981. This land was being cultivated by Sheo Ram son of Sheo Chand. The Consolidation Department, it is stated, gave possession of this land to the petitioners Ram Sarup and others sons of Sheo Ram son Sheo Chand, who have been in cultivating possession of this land since 1928 till date which is shown in the Jamabandi prepared immediately after consolidation. CWP No. 1049/2005 : 4. The petitioners Ram Krishan and others have stated that they are owners in possession of land measuring 77 kanals 0 marla comprised in khewat No. 67/65, Khatauni No. 81 in Village Kari Adu. They have been in possession from the time immemorial and are cultivating the same till date. The previous Khewat No. of the land of Khewat No. 67/65 was 36/29 as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1928 A.D. The entries in the column of ownership were Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. These entries, it is stated, show that the ownership of this Khewat was joint and Girdhari and Shobha, Jat, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners were owners in possession of the land in dispute as co-sharer of the village in proportion to their share in the joint holding. The entries of this land were repeated in the Jamabandis for the years 1936- 37, 1940-41, 1944-45, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1967-68, 1972-73 and 1977-78. The extracts of copies of the Jamabandis for the years 1928, 1936-37, 1956-57, 1967-68, 1977-78, 1980-81, 1992-93 are attached as Annexure P-1 to P-7. The consolidation in the village took place in the year 1980. The entries of this land were repeated in the Jamabandis for the years 1936- 37, 1940-41, 1944-45, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1967-68, 1972-73 and 1977-78. The extracts of copies of the Jamabandis for the years 1928, 1936-37, 1956-57, 1967-68, 1977-78, 1980-81, 1992-93 are attached as Annexure P-1 to P-7. The consolidation in the village took place in the year 1980. During consolidation Shamilat Deh land of Khasra No. 141/24B-13B, 162/0B-19B was converted into land measuring 121 kanals 15 marlas comprised in killa No. 49//11, 12, 31/120; Killa No. 50//21/1, 12 to 19, 22, 23, 24 and 25/1 in 1981. The land was being cultivated by Puran son of Moti etc., the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. The Consolidation Department gave possession of the land to Hari Ram son of Puran son of Moti. The petitioners have been in cultivating possession of this land since 1928 to 1981 as shown in the Jamabandi. CWP No. 1028/2005 : 5. The petitioners Chiranji Lal and Ami Lal sons of Ram Dayal son of Ram Lal state that they are co-sharers and right-holders of the village and are owners in possession of land measuring 96K-16M comprised in Khewat No. 71/69, Khatauni No. 85 in Village Kari Adu. The previous Khewat No. of land in Khewat No. 71/69 of this land was 40/39 as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1928. In the column of ownership, the land is recorded as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. The same entries of this land were repeated in the Jamabandis for the years 1936-37, 1940-41, 1944-45, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61, 1967-68, 1972-73 and 1977-78. The extracts of the Jamabandis for the years 1928, 1936- 37, 1956-57, 1967-68 and 1980-81 are attached as Annexure P-1 to P-5. During consolidation in the year 1980 Shamilat Deh land of Khasra No. 32/15B-0B was converted into land measuring 77 kanals 12 marlas, Killa No. 25//8/1, 8, 9, 2, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20/1, 21/3, 22, 23; Killa No. 27//1/2/1, 9/2, 10/1 in 1981. This land was being cultivated by Onkar son of Ramchander, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The Consolidation of Holdings Department gave possession of the same to the petitioners, who have been in cultivating possession of the said land since 1928 to 1981 as shown in the Jamabandi that was prepared immediately after consolidation in the year 1980. This land was being cultivated by Onkar son of Ramchander, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The Consolidation of Holdings Department gave possession of the same to the petitioners, who have been in cultivating possession of the said land since 1928 to 1981 as shown in the Jamabandi that was prepared immediately after consolidation in the year 1980. The same entries, it is stated, were repeated in the subsequent jamabandis in respect of the disputed land. No doubt later on, it is stated that the Panchayat was shown owner in the revenue record wrongly but the petitioners are shown in possession of the same throughout till date. It is alleged that this land was never used for common purpose of the village and it has remained in cultivating possession of the petitioners till date. CWP No. 1503/2005 : 6. The petitioners Jug Lal and others claim that they are co-sharers and right-holders of the village and are owners in possession of land measuring 41 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 72/70, Khatauni No. 86, 87 from time immemorial of their forefathers and they have been cultivating the same till date. From the perusal of the revenue record of the said land, it is stated, would show that previous Khewat No. of land of Khewat No. 72/70 was 40/32 as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1928 A.D. The entries in the column of ownership are recorded as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. These entries, it is stated, show that the ownership of this Khewat was joint and Juglal son of Budha and others are the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who were shown in possession of the land in dispute as co-sharers of the village in proportion to their share in the joint holdings. These entries of the said land were repeated in the Jamabandis for the years 1936- 37, 1940-41, 1944-45, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61, 1967-68, 1972-73 and 1977-78. The extracts of copies of Jamabandis for the years 1928, 1936-37, 1940-41, 1952-53, 1956-57 and 1972-73 are attached as Annexures P-1 to P-6. During consolidation, the Shamilat Deh land of Khasra No. 156/148/1B-2B, 7B-3B was converted into land measuring 41 kanals 19 marlas; Killa No. 60//4, 5/1, 53//23/2, 24/2, 25/2 and 1 in 1981. The land was being cultivated by Juglal son of Budha and others, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. During consolidation, the Shamilat Deh land of Khasra No. 156/148/1B-2B, 7B-3B was converted into land measuring 41 kanals 19 marlas; Killa No. 60//4, 5/1, 53//23/2, 24/2, 25/2 and 1 in 1981. The land was being cultivated by Juglal son of Budha and others, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The Consolidation of Holdings Department, it is stated, gave possession of the land to Juglal, Jagdish, Bhagwana, Ram Bhagat and Ramphal petitioners who have been in cultivating possession of the land since 1928 to 1981 as shown in the Jamabandi which was prepared immediately after consolidation in the year 1980. The same entries were repeated in the subsequent Jamabandis in respect of the disputed land. However, later the panchayat was shown owner in the revenue record wrongly. The petitioners were shown in possession of the same throughout. Till date this land has never been used for common purpose of the village and has remained in the cultivating possession with the petitioners. Copy of the Jamabandi for the years 1982-83 is attached as Annexure P-7. CWP No. 907/2005 : 7. Hari Ram, petitioner claims that he is co-owner in possession of land measuring 77 kanals and 0 marla comprised in Khewat No. 67/65, Khatauni No. 81. The previous Khewat No. of the land in Khewat No. 68/66 was 36/29 as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1928 A.D. The entries in the column of ownership is Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. These entries obviously, it is stated, show that the ownership of this Khewat was joint and Girdhari and Shobba, Jat, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner were shown as owner in possession of the land in dispute as co-sharer of the village in proportion to his share in the joint land. The same entries of the said land were repeated in the Jamabandis for the years 1936-37, 1940-41, 1944-45, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61, 1967-68, 1972-73 and 1977-78. The extracts of copies of Jamabandis for the years 1928, 1936-37, 1940-41, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1967-68, 1972-73 and 1977-78 are attached as Annexures P-1 to P-8. During consolidation the land of Shamilat Deh of Khasra No. 141/24B-13B, 162/0B-19B was converted into land measuring 121 kanals 15 marlas. Killa Nos. 49//11, 12, 31/120, 21/1; 50//12 to 19, 22, 23, 24, 25/1 in 1981. This land was being cultivated by Puran son of Moti, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. During consolidation the land of Shamilat Deh of Khasra No. 141/24B-13B, 162/0B-19B was converted into land measuring 121 kanals 15 marlas. Killa Nos. 49//11, 12, 31/120, 21/1; 50//12 to 19, 22, 23, 24, 25/1 in 1981. This land was being cultivated by Puran son of Moti, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The Consolidation Holding department gave its possession to Hari Ram son of Puran son of Moti, who has been cultivating the land since 1928 to 1981 as shown in the Jamabandi which was prepared immediately after the consolidation in 1980. The same entries were repeated in the subsequent Jamabandis of the disputed land. No doubt later on the panchayat was shown owner in revenue record wrongly. The petitioner, however, is shown in possession of the same throughout till date. This land was never used for common purpose of the village. CWP No. 244/2005 : 8. The petitioners Darya and Prabhu claim that they are co-sharers and right holders in the village and are owners in possession of land measuring 77 kanals 2 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 70/68, Khatauni No. 84 from time immemorial of their forefathers. The previous Khewat No. of land in Khewat No. 70/68 was 38/30 as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1928 A.D. The entries in the column of ownership are recorded as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. These entries, it is stated, show that ownership of this Khewat was joint and Natyo son of Chhatia, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was owner in possession of the land in dispute as a co-sharer of the village in proportion to his share in the joint land. Said entries in respect of the land were repeated in the Jamabandis for the years 1936-37, 1940-41, 1944-45, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61, 1967-68, 1972-73 and 1977-78. The extract of the copies of the Jamabandis for the years 1928, 1936-37, 1956-57, 1967-68 and 1977-78 are attached as Annexures P-1 to P-5. The consolidation took place in the village in the year 1980 and during consolidation of holdings, the Shamilat Deh land of Khasra No. 32/15B-0B was converted into land measuring 77 kanals 12 marlas. Killa No. 25//8/1/2, 8, 9, 2, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20/1; Killa No. 27//21/3, 22, 23, 1/2/1, 9/2, 10/1 in 1981. This land was being cultivated by Onkar son of Ram Chander, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Killa No. 25//8/1/2, 8, 9, 2, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20/1; Killa No. 27//21/3, 22, 23, 1/2/1, 9/2, 10/1 in 1981. This land was being cultivated by Onkar son of Ram Chander, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The Consolidation of Holdings Department gave possession of this land to Darya Singh and Prabhu son of Onkar and they have been in cultivating possession of this land since 1929 to 1981 as shown in the Jamabandi which was prepared immediately after the consolidation in the year 1980. The said entries were repeated in the subsequent Jamabandis in respect of the disputed land. Later on, the Gram Panchayat was wrongly shown as owner in the revenue record. However, the petitioners are shown in possession of the same throughout till date. Besides, this land was never used for common purposes of the village and had remained in cultivating possession of the petitioners till date. A copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 has been attached as Annexure P-6. 9. Therefore, it is evident that it is the common case of the petitioners in the six writ petitions that the land in question is recorded as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat and that it was shamilat land which during consolidation was assigned new Killa numbers. Besides, thereafter the possession was given to the persons in possession. Later on, the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) came to be recorded as owner. It is the further case of the petitioners that in the year 1992, the 1961 Act was amended by the Haryana Amendment Act No. 9 of 1992 and Section 2(g)(vi) of the 1961 Act was added by the said Amendment Act apart from the other amendments that were effected. After the said amendment by the Haryana Amendment Act No. 9 of 1992, it is submitted that such land shown in the revenue record as Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat vested with the Gram panchayat, Kari Adu (respondent No. 5). The entry in the column of ownership was shown as Gram Panchayat as owner in the Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 and the respective petitioners were shown in cultivating possession of the land in dispute in the column of tenancy as Gair Marusian and same entries were repeated in the subsequent Jamabandis till date. The entry in the column of ownership was shown as Gram Panchayat as owner in the Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 and the respective petitioners were shown in cultivating possession of the land in dispute in the column of tenancy as Gair Marusian and same entries were repeated in the subsequent Jamabandis till date. The Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) in view of the ownership filed applications under Section 7 of the 1961 Act in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Charkhi Dadri (respondent No. 4) seeking eviction of the respective petitioners from the land. The petitioners filed their reply to the petitions filed by the Gram Panchayat and stated that they were owners in possession of the disputed land from time immemorial of their forefathers and that the respondent-Gram Panchayat had no right and title over the land in dispute. The petitioners, it is stated, raised a question of title in respect of the land in dispute and also averred in the written statement that the application filed by respondent Gram Panchayat for their ejectment under Section 7 of the 1961 Act was not maintainable. In the case of Ram Sarup (CWP No. 19211 of 2004), the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (respondent No. 4) vide order dated 20.4.1987 dismissed the application holding that the Panchayat had failed to prove that the land in dispute is Shamilat Deh because the same was not being used for common purpose of the village. Besides, it was held that the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land has been since 1936- 37. The Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) filed an appeal against the said order before the Collector (respondent No. 3) which was also dismissed. The Gram Panchayat thereafter did not file any revision against the aforesaid order. Hence the order passed by the Assistant Collector, it is stated, attained finality. A copy of one of the said orders of the Assistant Collector passed on 20.4.1987 is attached as Annexure P-10 in the case of Ram Sarup (CWP No. 19211 of 2004). In the case of Darya Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 244 of 2005) also it has been submitted that the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) had earlier filed an application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act for the eviction of the petitioner which was dismissed on 20.4.1987. In the case of Darya Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 244 of 2005) also it has been submitted that the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) had earlier filed an application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act for the eviction of the petitioner which was dismissed on 20.4.1987. The copy of the order dated 20.4.1987 has been attached as Annexure P-9 in the case of Darya Singh (CWP No. 244 of 2005). In the other four cases though it has been mentioned in the list of dates that the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) had earlier filed applications for seeking eviction of the petitioners which were dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Charkhi Dadri (respondent No. 4) by order dated 24.8.1987, however, this fact is not mentioned in the body of the writ petitions and neither are the copies of the orders passed in the said cases been attached. Therefore, it appears that except in the case of Ram Sarup (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) and Darya Singh (CWP No. 244 of 2005) no applications were earlier filed by the Gram Panchayat in the other cases seeking eviction of the petitioners. It is, however, stated that the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) again moved an application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act for the eviction of the petitioners from the land in dispute on 29.3.1995. In any case, in all the cases the applications of the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) were accepted by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Charkhi Dadri (respondent No. 4) on 27.9.2000. The petitioners being aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the Collector, Bhiwani (respondent No. 3) who after hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal vide order dated 11.12.2000. Against the order of the Collector, the petitioners filed a revision petitions before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 2). The said revision petitions were dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 1.5.2003. The petitioners in view of the order passed by the Commissioner filed a civil Suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) which was dismissed on the ground that the Civil court has no jurisdiction under Section 13 of the 1961 Act. The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. The petitioners in view of the order passed by the Commissioner filed a civil Suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) which was dismissed on the ground that the Civil court has no jurisdiction under Section 13 of the 1961 Act. The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a review petition before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 2) on 31.3.2004. It was contended that the decision of the Full Bench in Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) PLR 658 had not been considered while deciding the revision petition. However, the Commissioner after hearing the parties dismissed the revision petition on 24.11.2004 on the short ground that there was no power of review under the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the present petitions have been filed assailing the orders as mentioned above. 10. Written statement has been filed in these cases. It is stated that in Ram Sarups case (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) that the petitioners therein had earlier filed a writ petition as mentioned in para 20 of the writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 5308 of 2004 which was got dismissed in limine so as to file a review petition against the order of the Commissioner. It is stated that no permission was given by this Court. The petitioner filed a review petition mischievously which was also dismissed and then they have filed the writ petition which is not maintainable on the ground of res judicata. Besides, it is stated in Ram Sarups case (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) and in the other cases as well that the petitioners have raised a new plea in the writ petitions which is not permissible. It is stated that in the reply to the application filed by the Gram Panchayat seeking eviction of the petitioners they submitted their written statements, the parties led their evidence and the authorities under the 1961 Act discussed the points raised by the petitioners and rightly ordered their ejectment. The new pleas, therefore, taken by the petitioners in the writ petitions are not liable to be entertained. It is also stated that against the order of the Assistant Collector, an appeal is maintainable when the amount of penalty is deposited by the petitioners. However, they failed to deposit the penalty. Therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Collector. The new pleas, therefore, taken by the petitioners in the writ petitions are not liable to be entertained. It is also stated that against the order of the Assistant Collector, an appeal is maintainable when the amount of penalty is deposited by the petitioners. However, they failed to deposit the penalty. Therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Collector. The Commissioner also, it is stated, rightly dismissed the revision petition. The Collector and the Commissioner had discussed the other points also on merit and had rightly dismissed the appeal and the revision petitions respectively. Against the dismissal of the review petition, it is stated that a writ petition is maintainable only on the ground dismissing the review petition and in the review petition there is no such ground on the basis of which the Commissioner could have reviewed his own order. On merits, it is submitted that the petitioners are in unauthorized possession of the panchayat land and their possession is not since time immemorial of their forefathers. The revenue record produced, it is stated, does not show that the land in dispute is the same. In other words, the previous land and the present land has not been shown to the same. Besides, the ownership of the land was that of Shamilat Deh and the petitioners are in unauthorized possession of the same. It is stated that the revenue record does not show that the petitioners are co-sharers. The entries shown in various Jamabandis are different. The revenue record, it is stated, does not show that the present land is as a result of conversion of old khasra numbers. The petitioners are in unauthorised possession of the panchayat land and their possession is not shown since 1928 as alleged. The amendment of the 1961 Act by Amendment Act No. 9 of 1992 is admitted. It is also accepted that Clause (6) to Section 2(g) was added to the 1961 Act by way of amendment. It is submitted that in view of the letter dated 3.5.1977 of the Haryana Government issued by the Panchayat & Revenue Department, the Shamilat Deh land was mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat in 1982 and since 1981-82, the Shamilat Deh land become panchayat land and the petitioners are in unauthorized possession of that land. It is submitted that in view of the letter dated 3.5.1977 of the Haryana Government issued by the Panchayat & Revenue Department, the Shamilat Deh land was mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat in 1982 and since 1981-82, the Shamilat Deh land become panchayat land and the petitioners are in unauthorized possession of that land. As regards the earlier application of the Gram Panchayat being dismissed in the case of Ram Sarup (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) and in the case of Darya Singh (CWP No. 244 of 2005), it is stated that it was due to collusion of the panchayat with the petitioners. The appeal before the Collector was dismissed as time barred. Besides, it is submitted that a second application is maintainable and the Assistant Collector later on ejected the petitioners which order was upheld by the Collector and the Commissioner. In the other cases, there is no mention with regard to the earlier application filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) being dismissed in which it is only stated that the authorities under the Act have rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the land which is owned by the Gram Panchayat. 11. The Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 2) has filed a separate written statement in which it is stated in respect of Ram Sarups case (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) that the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and no permission was given by this Court. The petitioners filed the review petition mischievously which was also dismissed and then they again filed the writ petition which is not maintainable on the ground of res judicata. Besides, it is stated that the petitioners have raised new plea in the writ petitions which is not permissible. In reply to the application filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) seeking ejectment of the petitioners, the petitioners submitted their written statements, the parties led evidence and the authorities under the 1961 Act discussed the points raised by the petitioners and rightly ordered their ejectment. It is further stated that against the order of the Assistant Collector (respondent No. 4), appeal is maintainable when amount of penalty is deposited by the petitioners but they failed to deposit the penalty, therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Collector and the Commissioner also dismissed the revision petition on the said ground. It is further stated that against the order of the Assistant Collector (respondent No. 4), appeal is maintainable when amount of penalty is deposited by the petitioners but they failed to deposit the penalty, therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Collector and the Commissioner also dismissed the revision petition on the said ground. The Collector and the Commissioner discussed the other points also on merits and rightly dismissed the appeal and the revision petition respectively. The petitioners filed the review petition which is not maintainable. Against the dismissal of the review petition, the writ petition, it is stated, is maintainable only on the ground dismissing the review petition and in the review petition there is no such ground on the basis of which the Commissioner could have reviewed his order. The other factual assertions as made by the petitioners are denied. It is stated that the petitioners are in unauthorised possession of the panachayat land and, therefore, their possession is not since time immemorial of their forefathers. It is also stated that the revenue record produced does not show that the land in dispute is the same. In other words, the previous land and the present land has not been shown to be the same. The ownership of the land was shamilat Deh and the petitioners are in unauthorised possession. The revenue record does not show that the petitioners are co-sharers. The entries as shown in various Jamabandis, it is stated, are different. It is alleged that the revenue record does not show that the present land is as a result of conversion of old khasra numbers. The petitioners are stated to be in unauthorised possession of the panchayat land and their possession is not shown since 1928. The amendment of the 1961 Act in terms of Amendment Act No. 9 of 1992 and addition of clause (6) of Section 2(g) of the Act is admitted. It is stated that letter dated 3.5.1977 of the Haryana Government, Panchayat and Revenue Department, the Shamilat Deh land was mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) in 1982 and since 1981-82 the Shamilat land became panchayat land and the petitioners are in unauthorised possession of that land. It is stated that letter dated 3.5.1977 of the Haryana Government, Panchayat and Revenue Department, the Shamilat Deh land was mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) in 1982 and since 1981-82 the Shamilat land became panchayat land and the petitioners are in unauthorised possession of that land. Regarding filing of earlier ejectment petition by the Gram Panchayat in Ram Sarups case (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) and in Darya Singhs case (CWP No. 244 of 2005), it is stated that these were dismissed in 1987 and the appeal before the Collector was dismissed being time barred. However, it was due to collusion of the then Panchayat with the petitioners that the said earlier petitions were dismissed. In any case, a second application, seeking ejectment of the petitioners is maintainable. The Assistant Collector (respondent No. 4) ordered the ejectment of the petitioners which order has been upheld by the Collector (respondent No. 3) and the Commissioner (respondent No. 2). It is stated that dismissal of an earlier application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act is no bar to the filing of a fresh application under Section 7 and the Assistant Collector has rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioners as they are in unauthorised possession. The said order has been upheld by the Collector (respondent No. 3) and the Commissioner (respondent No. 2). 12. The petitioners have filed replication to the written statement filed by the respondents in which the assertions as made in the writ petition have been reiterated. It is submitted that the earlier writ petition in Ram Sarups case (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) was withdrawn because of the latest judgment in Jai Singhs case (supra) which was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner at the time of hearing the revision. Had the same been cited before the Commissioner, it is submitted, that the result would have been otherwise. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the same was not decided on merit. As such it is not a case where the principles of res judicata would apply. The other assertions as made in the writ petition are reiterated. 13. Mr. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the same was not decided on merit. As such it is not a case where the principles of res judicata would apply. The other assertions as made in the writ petition are reiterated. 13. Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that there has been a complete misreading of the revenue records in this case by the authorities under the 1961 Act and in fact the authorities under the Act while passing the impugned orders had primarily based their findings on the earlier decision in the case of Jai Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), which has in fact been re-decided by a Full Bench of this court after an order of remand by the Honble Supreme Court. A reference is made to the judgment in Jai Singhs case (supra) to contend that the land which has been contributed by the proprietors on the basis of pro-rata cut of their holdings imposed during the consolidation proceedings and which has not been earmarked for any common purpose in the consolidation scheme prepared under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (1948 Act for short) and Rules 5 and 7 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (1949 Rules for short) entered in the column of ownership as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat and in the column of possession with the proprietors shall not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State Government as the case may be by dint of sub-section (6) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act or the 1948 Act. It is stated that the present case of the petitioners is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Jai Singhs case because the land in dispute has been described and recorded in the revenue records in the column of ownership as Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat and in the column of possession of proprietors/petitioners are recorded as in possession. Besides, the same has not been reserved in consolidation proceedings for any common purpose and neither is it being used for common purpose of the inhabitants of the village. Besides, the same has not been reserved in consolidation proceedings for any common purpose and neither is it being used for common purpose of the inhabitants of the village. Rather, the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest are in continuous cultivating possession of the same for the last 75 years which is without payment of rent. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to the protection under Section 493)(ii) of 1961 Act. It is stated that the petitioners filed their written statement to the application on 25.9.1977 alleging that they are owners in possession of the disputed land and the respondent-Gram Panchayat has no right and title in respect of the disputed land meaning thereby that the petitioners raised a specific question of title in respect of the land in dispute but the same was wrongly ignored by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. It is contended that question of title could only be decided under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act and without deciding the same, the application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act is not maintainable. It is also contended that the order passed by the Assistant Collector is barred by the principles of res judicata because earlier applications filed by the Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) under Section 7 of the 1961 Act on 2.4.1984 were dismissed on 20.4.1987. The Gram Panchayat also went in appeal against the said order before the Collector which was also dismissed on 6.6.1988. The Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 5) again filed applications under Section 7 which were dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the applications were filed on 29.3.1995 in which the present orders have been passed. However, the filing of the earlier applications was not disclosed. It is also contended that the authorities under the 1961 Act have erred in holding that the petitioners are in unauthorised possession of the disputed land which is against the earlier orders passed on 20.4.1987. The Commissioner also, it is contended, has gone wrong in dismissing the revision petition by holding that possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute since 1987 is wholly against the record. Besides, it is contended that the petitioners have been in cultivating possession of the disputed land for the last 75 years. Therefore, the impugned orders that have been passed are in violation of the 1961 Act. Besides, it is contended that the petitioners have been in cultivating possession of the disputed land for the last 75 years. Therefore, the impugned orders that have been passed are in violation of the 1961 Act. Besides, the action of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 2) in not entertaining the review petition which is provided for under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also erroneous. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the authorities under the 1961 Act are liable to be set aside and quashed. 14. In response, Mr. S.S. Pattar, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 5 Gram Panchayat have controverted the assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is contended by way of preliminary objections that the writ petition filed in Ram Sarups case (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) is not maintainable as the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and no permission was taken to file a subsequent petition. Therefore, the writ petition is barred by the principle of res judicata. On merits, it is contended that the case of the petitioners is not covered by the judgment of the Full Bench in Jai Singhs case (supra). It is stated that it is not borne out from the pleadings and evidence on record that the petitioners are proprietors of the village and their land is in joint pool and further there is no evidence on record that during consolidation proceedings the present land was not reserved for common purpose. It is submitted that the land was Shamilat Deh from time immemorial and it vested in the Panchayat in the year 1982 on the basis of Haryana Government letter dated 3.5.1977. It is further submitted that the possession of the petitioners over the panchayat land is unauthorised and they have failed to prove that their possession is not more than their share. Besides, no benefit is available to them in terms of Section 493)(ii) of the 1961 Act. It is denied that the petitioners are in possession of the land for more than 15 years before 26.12.1953. Besides, no benefit is available to them in terms of Section 493)(ii) of the 1961 Act. It is denied that the petitioners are in possession of the land for more than 15 years before 26.12.1953. It is also contended that the fact that the earlier petition in the case of Ram Sarup (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) and in the case of Darya Singh (CWP No. 244 of 2005) were dismissed is inconsequential as the concept of res judicata is not applicable to proceedings under Section 7 of the 1961 Act. It is submitted that the earlier order passed by the Assistant Collector was not correct and, therefore, the second application was filed which has rightly been allowed. It is also contended that the Collector has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and the Commissioner has also rightly dismissed the revision petition as also the review application as review is not maintainable in the absence of a specific provision. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. At the first instance the preliminary objection that has been raised by the respondents with regard to the writ petition of Ram Sarup and others (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) being not maintainable may be considered. It is not in dispute that the petitioners Ram Sarup and others had earlier filed CWP No. 5308 of 2004, which was dismissed in limine. It is stated that this was so as to enable the petitioners to file a review petition against the order dated 1.5.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 2). In consequence of the order that was passed by this Court a review petition dated 31.3.2003 was filed before the Commissioner which has been dismissed vide order dated 24.1.2004 by observing that there was no power to review under the 1961 Act. The said order has now been challenged by Ram Sarup and others by way of CWP No. 19211 of 2004. The passing of the order dated 24.11.2004 by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar furnishes a fresh cause of action to the petitioners to assail the order passed by the authorities under the 1961 Act. The said order has now been challenged by Ram Sarup and others by way of CWP No. 19211 of 2004. The passing of the order dated 24.11.2004 by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar furnishes a fresh cause of action to the petitioners to assail the order passed by the authorities under the 1961 Act. Therefore, the objection that the writ petition is not maintainable or is barred by the principles of res judicata is not tenable as nothing was decided in the earlier writ petition filed by Ram Sarup and others. The filing of the earlier writ petition has been duly disclosed by the petitioners. As such the objection taken by the respondents is without basis and devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly overruled. Insofar as the other cases are concerned there is no such objection with regard to filing an earlier writ petition. 16. At this stage, the other contention as to whether the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar has power to review his earlier order dated 15.2.2003 under the 1961 Act may also be considered. A perusal of the 1961 Act shows that there is no power of review conferred on the authorities. The said 1961 Act is a complete code in itself and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, a reference to which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable so as to confer a remedy of review of the order that has been passed by the authorities under the 1961 Act. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273, it was held that the power to review is not an inherent right. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. In Kewalchand Mimani v. S.K. Sen, AIR 2001 SC 2569, the same view was reiterated. Therefore, in the circumstances, the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No. 2) vide his order dated 24.11.2004 rightly held that the review petition against the order dated 1.5.2003 was not maintainable as it has no power of review. 17. The contention that has primarily been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the effect of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singhs case (supra). 17. The contention that has primarily been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the effect of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singhs case (supra). It has been contended that the said judgment in fact fully covers the case of the petitioners inasmuch as the land in the revenue record in the column of ownership has been mentioned as Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat and in the column of possession, the possession of the proprietors/petitioners has been recorded and the land in question has not been reserved during consolidation proceedings for common purpose. Besides, the same is not being used for common purposes of the inhabitants of the village. Rather, the petitioners predecessor-in-interest have been in continuous possession of the same for the last 75 years. 18. In order to appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be noticed that the provisions of the 1961 Act in terms of Section 4 provide for vesting of rights in panchayats and non-proprietors. In terms of Section 4(1)(a) it is provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or any agreement, instrument, custom or usage or any decree or order of any Court or other authority, all rights, title and interest whatever in the land which is included in the Shamilat Deh to any village and does not vest in the panchayat under the Shamilat law shall, at the commencement of the 1961 Act, vest in a panchayat constituted for such village and where no such panchayat has been constituted for such village vest in the panchayat on such date as the panchayat having jurisdiction over that village is constituted. Therefore, the land which is included in the Shamilat Deh of any village is to vest in a panchayat. Therefore, the land which is included in the Shamilat Deh of any village is to vest in a panchayat. Shamilat Deh has been defined in Section 2(g) of the Act as follows :- "2(g) Shamilat Deh" includes - (1) Lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat Deh or Charand excluding abadi Deh; (2) Shamilat Tikkas; (3) Lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat Tarafs, Patties, Pannas and Tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of village; (4) Lands used for the benefit of village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking wells, or ponds situated within the Sabha area as defined in clause (mmm) of Section 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 excluding lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the State Government under Section 23-A of the aforesaid Act; (4a) vacant land situated in abadi deh or gora deh not owned by any person; (5) Lands in any village described as banjar quadim and used for common purposes of the village according to revenue records : Provided that Shamilat deh at least to the extent of twenty-five per centum of the total area of the village does not exist in the village; (6) Lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act, 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the Gram Panchayat under Section 23-A of the aforesaid Act. Explanation. Explanation. - Lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad, shall be shamilat deh within the meaning of this section." but does not include land which : (i) becomes or has become shamilat deh due to river action or has been reserved as shamilat in villages subject to river action except shamilat deh entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue records; (ii) has been allotted on quasi permanent basis to a displaced person; (ii-a) was shamilat Deh, but has been allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government, after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985; (iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before the 26th January, 1950; (iv) having been acquired before 26th January, 1950, by a person by purchase or in exchange for proprietary land from a co-sharer in the shamilat Deh and is so recorded in the Jamabandi or is supported by a valid deed; (v) is described in the revenue records as Shamilat Taraf, Patti, Panna or Thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village; (vi) lies outside the abadi Deh and was being used as gitwar, bara, manure pit, a house or for cottage industry immediately before the commencement of this Act. (vii) is Shamilat Deh, of village includes in the fourteen revenue estates called Bhojas of Naraingarh Tehsil of Ambala district. (viii) was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat Deh on or before the 26th January 1950; or (ix) is used as a place of worship or for purposes subservient thereto." A perusal of the above definition of Shamilat Deh shows that the land described in the revenue records as Shamilat Deh are to be treated as Shamilat Deh. In Shiv Charan Singh v. Gram Panchayat Narike and another, 1977 PLJ 453, a Division Bench of this Court held that from the perusal of sub-clause (1) of Section 2(g) of the Act, it is evident that Shamilat Deh would include land described in the revenue record as shamilat Deh. In Shiv Charan Singh v. Gram Panchayat Narike and another, 1977 PLJ 453, a Division Bench of this Court held that from the perusal of sub-clause (1) of Section 2(g) of the Act, it is evident that Shamilat Deh would include land described in the revenue record as shamilat Deh. The contention that had been raised therein was that under sub-clause (5) only Bajar Qadim land which was used for common purposes of the village according to the revenue record would be Shamilat Deh and which is not used for common purposes would not become shamilat Deh and that sub-clause (5) is a proviso to sub-clause (1). It was thus contended that the land which is Banjar Qadim and not used for common purposes according to the revenue record would not vest in the Gram Panchayat even if it is recorded in the revenue records as Shamilat Deh. The said contention was not accepted by the Division Bench. After referring to the provisions of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act it was observed as follows :- "From the bare perusal of the sub-clause reproduced above, it would be evident that all the said sub-clauses are independent of each other and describe as to which type of land would be included in the Shamilat Deh. Sub- clause (1) covers the case of land described in the revenue records as Shamilat deh; while sub-clause (5) covers the case of lands in the villages described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village according to the revenue records. I agree with Mr. Goyal that sub-clause (5) could cover the cases of lands which may belong to private persons but having been recorded as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village according to revenue records, would become Shamilat Deh. It is evident that such a case could not fall within the purview of other clauses. To my mind, it is clear that sub- clause (5) was enacted with a definite purpose to apply to the banjar qadim land used for the common purposes of the village according to the revenue records even if it belonged to any particular individual or individuals. If this sub-clause had not been added as an independent one, then the village community could have been deprived of valuable right at the sweetwill of an individual proprietor. If this sub-clause had not been added as an independent one, then the village community could have been deprived of valuable right at the sweetwill of an individual proprietor. Further, the idea of the legislature seems to be clear that such land should vest in the Gram Panchayat as the same would be properly administered and managed by the Gram Panchayat." 19. A perusal of the above shows that the sub-clauses of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act are independent of each other. Besides, it was also observed that from sub-clause (1) it is evident that Shamilat Deh would include land described in the revenue records as Shamilat Deh. Therefore, land which is recorded in the revenue records as Shamilat Deh would fall within the definition of Shamilat Deh as defined in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. Once the land is Shamilat Deh it vests in the Gram Panchayat by virtue of Section 4(1) of the 1961 Act. 20. The judgment in Jai Singhs case (supra) was primarily in relation to considering the fact of addition of clause (6) to Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. A reading of the said clause (6) of Section 2(g) relates to reservation of land for common purposes of village under Section 18 of the 1948 Act, the management and control of which is to vest in the Gram Panchayat under Section 23-A of the aforesaid 1948 Act. Besides, in terms of the explanation land entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Raqsad is to be Shamilat land within the meaning of Section 2(g)(6) of 1961. In fact it is not necessary to go into the controversy with respect to Jai Singhs case (supra) in the context of 2(g)(6) of the 1961 Act as the same is in relation to the land which is of Jumla Malkan or is primarily Bachat land. Bachat land is the unutilized land from the land reserved in the common pool for common purposes in terms of the consolidation scheme framed in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the 1948 Act. The Jumla Malkan land, which is not used for common purposes as defined in Section 2(bb) of the 1948 Act is owned by the proprietary body. The Bachat land can be re-distributed amongst the proprietors from whom it was taken. The Jumla Malkan land, which is not used for common purposes as defined in Section 2(bb) of the 1948 Act is owned by the proprietary body. The Bachat land can be re-distributed amongst the proprietors from whom it was taken. However, in the present case the entry in the revenue record is Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasaqd Raqba Khewat and this has been recorded even in the Jamabandi of 1928. In terms of Section 2(g)(1) of the 1961 Act, Shamilat Deh includes land which is described in the revenue record as Shamilat Deh. Therefore, this is to vest in the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. As such, the stand taken by the petitioners that the judgment in Jai Singhs case (supra) is applicable and covers the case of the petitioners is clearly misconceived as it is the land which is described under the ownership of Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad that was considered in Jai Singhs case (supra). The present is a case of Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. The term Shamilat Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat would mean that the share of the proprietors in the Shamilat Deh land is to the extent of the share of their holding in the Khewat. The nature of the land being Shamilat Deh does not, in any manner, cease. In Jaswant Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1966 PLJ 19, a Division Bench of this Court held that in a village in which there is no fluctuation of revenue assessment, the expression Hasab Rasad Khewat means according to the revenue assessed on the holdings, but in other villages in which either the revenue fluctuates for some reason or the village administration papers say so, in all those cases the expression Hasab Rasad Khewat is to be read meaning according to the area of the holdings or a division in proportion of area. 21. In the case in hand the term revenue records Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. With the use of the expression Raqba Khewat it is evident that the share of the proprietors in the Shamilat Deh land is to the extent of the share of their holdings in the Khewat. 21. In the case in hand the term revenue records Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. With the use of the expression Raqba Khewat it is evident that the share of the proprietors in the Shamilat Deh land is to the extent of the share of their holdings in the Khewat. Besides, it is not the case of the petitioners that the land has been partitioned amongst the holders of the land according to their share in the holding in the Khewat. Section 2(g) as hs been noticed is in two parts. The first part of Section 2(g) relates to land which is included in Shamilat Deh and the second part is that which is excluded from Shamilat Deh. In terms of clause (iii) in the second part which relates to exclusion of land from Shamilat Deh, it has been provided that the land which has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual land owners before 26.1.1950 would not be included in Shamilat Deh. It is not even the case of the petitioners that the land in question has ever been partitioned, which may bring their case in the said exclusion clause. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they are in individual cultivating possession of the Shamilat land of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective share in Shamilat Deh on or before 26.1.1950 so as to come within the exclusion provided by clause (viii) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. The expressions individual cultivating possession and respective shares were considered in the case of Ram Bahu and others v. Gram Panchayat (Gram Sabha) of Village Indri, 1971 PLJ 487, wherein it was observed as follows :- "The use of the words and expressions individual, cultivating possession and respective shares would suggest that a co-sharer or a small body of co- sharers should be in separate cultivating possession of lands on individual basis before they can claim the benefit of the exception. There is further condition attached that the separate cultivating possession of an individual co-sharer or small body of co-sharers should not exceed his or their due share in the Shamilat land. There is no question of the entire proprietary body having its respective share in the shamilat. There is further condition attached that the separate cultivating possession of an individual co-sharer or small body of co-sharers should not exceed his or their due share in the Shamilat land. There is no question of the entire proprietary body having its respective share in the shamilat. The proprietary body would be owning the entire Shamilat on a joint basis and cannot be said to have only a share in the Shamilat. There is no separate cultivating possession of the proprietary body on individual basis in the capacity of an individual co- sharer or a small body of co-sharers which could claim to be distinct and separate from the proprietary body so that he or they could have their respective shares in the Shamilat. The plaintiff-appellants are not shown to have been in cultivating possession of any separate parcels of the Shamilat land as co-sharers at the crucial time and there is nothing to stop the Shamilat land from vesting in the defendant-Panchayat on the coming into force of the Act." The judgment in Ram Bahus case (supra) was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Tel Ram v. Gram Sabha Manakpur, 1976 PLJ 628 wherein it was also observed that the land if it falls under any of the clauses of Section 2(g), it is sufficient to bring the land within the definition of the word Shamilat Deh and the requirement of clause (1) is applicable to the said land and no further reference to any other clause is necessary to treat the land as Shamilat Deh. Therefore, the land having been described as Shamilat Deh, it would come within the ambit of clause (1) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act and vests in the Gram Panchayat by virtue of Section 4(1) thereof. 22. Another aspect which is discernible from the Jamabandi for the year 1928 that has been placed on record is that the land has been recorded in the column of cultivation to be self-cultivation of the persons mentioned in possession in the column of ownership below the entry Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. However, the classification of the land is recorded primarily as Rasoli Barani and Mud Barani and Banjar Quadim. Such land, therefore, cannot be said to be in cultivating possession of the petitioners as the nature of the land is recorded as Rasoli Barani and Mud Barani or Banjar Barani. However, the classification of the land is recorded primarily as Rasoli Barani and Mud Barani and Banjar Quadim. Such land, therefore, cannot be said to be in cultivating possession of the petitioners as the nature of the land is recorded as Rasoli Barani and Mud Barani or Banjar Barani. This position with regard to the nature of the land continues upto the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 attached as Annexure P-8 in Ram Sarups case (CWP No. 19211 of 2004). Therefore, the stand of the petitioners that they are in cultivating possession of the land clearly stands belied when the land is recorded as Barani. The land which remains fallow and uncultivated for successive period of eight harvests is recorded as Banjar Quadim. The classification of the land as referred to above which is lying uncultivated dislodges the stand of the petitioners that they or their forefathers have been in cultivating possession of the same for the last 75 years as is the stand sought to be made out by them. Therefore, the stand of the petitioners that they are entitled to protection or the benefit of Section 4(3)(ii) of the 1961 Act which relates to the rights of the persons who were in cultivating possession of Shamilat Deh is also without any substance. 23. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent Gram Panchayat has no right or title over the disputed land is also without any merit as the land in the revenue record has been described as Shamilat Deh and in terms of Section 4(1) of the 1961 Act it vests in the Gram Panchayat. Another contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the petition under Section 7 being barred. This is moreso in respect of Ram Sarups case (CWP No. 19211 of 2004) and Darya Singhs case (CWP No. 244 of 2005) in view of the earlier petitions being dismissed. In this respect, it may be noticed that the Honble Supreme Court in Inder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1997(1) PLJ 52 held that the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to summary proceedings unless the statute expressly applies to such order. It was held that the authorities under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act are not civil Courts and nor the petition a plaint. It was held that the authorities under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act are not civil Courts and nor the petition a plaint. No issues were framed nor tried as a civil suit and the orders passed by the authorities without any elaborate trial like any civil suit but in a summary manner would not make the principle of res judicata applicable. Therefore, merely because an earlier petition filed by the Gram Panchayat before the authorities under the 1961 Act has been dismissed would in the circumstances of the case not bar the filing of another petition by the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, this objection of the petitioners is also without any basis. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.