Judgment Daya Chaudhary, J. 1. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat has filed the present writ petition for quashing of order dated November 18, 1981 (Annexure P-1) and order dated April 24, 1984 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. 1.). 2. Respondent No. 3 Bant Singh and Respondent No. 4 Waryam Singh filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act of 1948) before respondent No. 1 which was allowed vide order dated November 18, 1981. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under: This petition is aimed to secure partition of 912 K-0 M which is lying in Bachat in the village. It is stated that the Panchayat now wants to take possession of this area from the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has, however, stated before me that he was not insisting on the division of entire 912 K-0 M area amongst various co-sharers. He has now reduced his demand to the division of 323 K-1 M ordinary which is lying in Bachat in the village after excluding the area of the Panchayat farm and the area reserved for other common purposes. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since mis area which was shown as Bachat and which originally vested in Jumla Mushtarka Malkan had come into existence as a result of excessive pro-rata deduction imposed upon various right-holders, it would be proper if this area is given back to the various co-sharers in the village according to their entitlement. 3. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat raised an objection before respondent No. 1 on the ground that order Annexure P-1 was virtually an ex parte order as the same was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, as the person representing the Gram Panchayat was not authorized by the Panchayat. The claim of the Gram Panchayat was rejected vide order Annexure P-2, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The sole argument of Mr. S.S. Salar, learned Counsel for the petitioner Gram Panchayat, is that the Director had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh, Gram Panchayat or proprietors of the village and had wrongly decided by passing orders Annexures P-1 and P-2. In support of his contention, Mr. 4. The sole argument of Mr. S.S. Salar, learned Counsel for the petitioner Gram Panchayat, is that the Director had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh, Gram Panchayat or proprietors of the village and had wrongly decided by passing orders Annexures P-1 and P-2. In support of his contention, Mr. Salar has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Gram Panchayat, Nurpur v. State of Punjab and Ors. and argued that the case of the petitioner Gram Panchayat is fully covered by mis judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: We are of the view that the Additional Director, Consolidation, has no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute was shamlat deh or not. This is a question which could only be decided by the authorities under the Regulation Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Additional Director, Consolidation and also the order of the High Court and sent the matter before the Collector, Kapurthala for decision in accordance with law under the Regulation Act. We make it clear that the Collector shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law irrespective authorities in this respect. We direct the Collector to decide the matter within two months of the receipt of this order. 5. Mr. Salar has relied upon various judgments of this Court in support of his claim reported as Gurdial Singh v. The State of Haryana; Gram Panchayat, Chalela and Anr. v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Ors.; Gram Panchayat, Bhattian Bet v. Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab and Ors. (2005-2) 140 P.L.R. 275; Gram Panchayat, Village Shekhupur v. Union of India and Ors.; Gram Panchayat, Village Kheri Manian v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Ors. and Sem Pal v. State of Punjab (2007-3) 147 P.L.R. 568. 6. The other arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are that the impugned orders have been passed without any jurisdiction and are nullity in the eyes of law. Moreover, the consolidation proceedings were completed in the village more than 25 years back and petition under Section 42 of the Act was filed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 after about 25 years. Moreover, the consolidation proceedings were completed in the village more than 25 years back and petition under Section 42 of the Act was filed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 after about 25 years. He argued that neither an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition was made nor any affidavit was filed and the order Annexure P-1 was passed without condoning the delay. It was also argued that the land which was reserved as shamlat deh, was not recorded in the revenue records before consolidation and the same was vested and/or stood transferred in the name of the Panchayat. He argued that as per Section 46 of Act No. 27 of 1960, the area reserved for income of Panchayat prior to 1960, cannot be taken out, from Khata of Gram Panchayat. He further argued that petitioner-Gram Panchayat has been leasing out land during these 30 years which was in the knowledge of the respondents. It was also argued that the impugned orders have wrongly been passed without any jurisdiction vide which distribution of land to the respondents by partition has been ordered. 7. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which is on record. 8. Mr. Amarjit Markan, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has argued on the basis of the written statement filed the land in dispute is not panchayat deh but, as per consolidation scheme, it is Bachat land and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other proprietors have right to take land as per their entitlement if that land has not been used for common purposes. Mr. Markan has argued that both the orders were passed in the presence of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. He argued that as per consolidation Scheme, the land in dispute is Bachat Land, and the petitioner-Gram Panchayat has never challenged the consolidation scheme. That respondent No. 1 has rightly passed the orders as the land in dispute is Bachat Land and the petitioner has not made out any case that the land is Panchayat Deh as it has been declared in the consolidation Scheme which has taken place years back and, moreover, it can be a case of wrong entry in the revenue record and the same is to be ignored. Mr. Mr. Markan has relied upon Division Bench judgments of this Court reported as Gram Panchayat, Village Bhedpura v. Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab; Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Ors. 1997 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 365 : 1997 (1) P.L.J. 458 and Gurjant Singh and Anr. v. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and Anr. 9. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the orders passed by respondent No. 1. 10. Before I notice judicial precedents, it would be relevant to mention, in brief, as to what is Bachat or Surplus land. It is a common case of the parties that in a Scheme framed under the Act of 1948, every proprietor of the village depending upon the extent of his holding, has to contribute his land for common purposes. Common land which is naturally meant for the common use of the village, is thus, provided by none other proprietors of the village. A pro rata cut applied to the holding of the proprietors, is what constitutes common land in a village. The Consolidation Scheme further provides various purposes for which common land is to be used. The scheme also provides the extent of land earmarked for such use of the land. If after utilizing the land for all common purposes as mentioned in the consolidation Scheme, some land is still left out, it is that which is known as Bachat or surplus land. It is not disputed by both the parties that such Bachat or surplus land is normally recorded in the revenue record as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Khewat. The revenue records further describe the share of each proprietor which is to the extent of the land contributed by such landowners. The common land, thus, having been contributed by the proprietors of the village by a Scheme framed under the Act of 1948, it shall be relevant to make a mention of Sections 18, 21, 23-A and 42 of the 1948 Act. Section 18 of the Act of 1948 deals with the land reserved for common purposes whereas Section 21 deals with repartition in accordance with Scheme of Consolidation of holdings. Section 23-A of the Act deals with the management and control of lands for common purposes. Sections 18, 21, 23-A reads as under: 18. Section 18 of the Act of 1948 deals with the land reserved for common purposes whereas Section 21 deals with repartition in accordance with Scheme of Consolidation of holdings. Section 23-A of the Act deals with the management and control of lands for common purposes. Sections 18, 21, 23-A reads as under: 18. Lands reserved for common purposes.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for the Consolidation Officer to direct- (a) that any land specifically assigned for any common purpose shall cease to be so assigned and to assign any other land in its place; (b) mat any land under the bed of a steam or torrent flowing through or from the Shivalik Mountain range within the State shall be assigned for any common purpose; (c) that if in any area under consolidation no land is reserved for any common purpose including extension of the village abadi, or if the land so reserved is inadequate to assign other land for such purpose, x xx 21. Repartition.- (1) The Consolidation Officer shall, after obtaining the advice of the landowners of the estate or estates concerned, carry out repartition in accordance with the scheme of consolidation of holdings confirmed under Section 20 and the boundaries of the holdings as demarcated shall be shown on the Shajra which shall be published in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned. (2) any person aggrieved by the repartition may file a written objection within fifteen days of the publication before the Consolidation Officer who shall after hearing the objector pass such order as he considers proper confirming or modifying the repartition, x x x x x 23-A. Management and Control of Lands for Common Purposes to vest in Panchayats or State Government. As soon as a scheme comes into force the management and control of all lands assigned or reserved for common purposes of the village under Section 18- (a) in the case of common purposes specified in Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (bb) of Section 2 in respect of which the management and control are to be exercised by the State Government, shall vest in the State Government; and (b) in the case of any other common purpose, shall vest in the Panchayat of that village; and the State Government or the Panchayat, as the case may be, shall be entitled to appropriate the income accruing therefrom for the benefit of the village community, and the rights and interests of the owners of such lands shall stand modified and extinguished accordingly. Provided that in the case of land assigned or reserved for the extension of village abadi or manure pits for the proprietors and non-proprietors of the village, such land shall vest in the proprietors and non-proprietors to whom it is given under the scheme of consolidation. 11. Section 42 of the Act of 1948 vests the Government with the power to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under the Act. 12. As I am in agreement with the contention of the learned Counsel representing the respondents that the matter herein is not res Integra and stands clinched in favour of the respondents by string of judicial precedents, I only hasten to comment that by virtue of Section 23-A which is a charging section i.e. Section vesting control of land for common purposes in the Gram Panchayats refers only of the land assigned or reserved for common purposes, and, therefore, such control or management cannoc be extended to lands which have been found surplus. 13. Various judgments as relied upon by the parties are necessary to be mentioned. 14. Apex Court in Bhagat Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. held that a scheme reserving land for income of Panchayat contravenes the provisions of Article 31-A(1) second proviso of the Constitution of India and, therefore, must be modified so as to bring it within the scope of law. 14. Apex Court in Bhagat Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. held that a scheme reserving land for income of Panchayat contravenes the provisions of Article 31-A(1) second proviso of the Constitution of India and, therefore, must be modified so as to bring it within the scope of law. In so far as reserving common land for the income of the Gram Panchayat is concerned, the same is hit by Article 31-A(1) second proviso of the Constitution and I may mention that all that could be urged in support of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is that even though it is a surplus or Bachat land, the management and control of the land shall vest with Panchayat to augment income of the Gram Panchayat. 15. A single Bench of this Court in Des Raj and Anr. v. Gram Sabha of Village Ladhot and Anr. 1981 P.L.J. 300 held that when entries in the revenue records show land in the name of proprietors i.e. Makbuza Malkan and the same is not shown to be used according to revenue records for the benefit of village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village, the land shall not fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh under Section 2(g)(3) of the Act. 16. A single Bench of this Court in Chajju Ram v. The Joint Director Panchayats and Ors. (1986-1) 89 P.L.R. 566 held that when land is kept apart as Mustarka Malkan and as per revenue record it vests in proprietary body and used for agricultural purposes by proprietors of the village and not for any common purpose of the village, it does not come in the ambit of Shamlat Deh and further that land carved out during consolidation after applying cut on landowner not reserved for common purposes of village but kept apart as Mustarka Malkan, shall not be Shamilat Deh. 17. A single Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat Gunia Majri v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Ors. relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat Sahara (formerly Dhumma) etc. v. Baldev Singh and Ors. 17. A single Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat Gunia Majri v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Ors. relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat Sahara (formerly Dhumma) etc. v. Baldev Singh and Ors. 1977 P.L.J. 276 and some other judicial precedents held that when land (Bachat) was deducted from the holdings of the proprietors pro rata (Hasab Rasad Khewat) the plea that entries in the revenue records like Hasab Rasad Khewat, Jumla Mustarka Malkan or Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasad Rasta Raqba, would not entitle right holders for common purposes, was without any basis. 18. A single Bench of this Court in Baj Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. held that Bachaat land i.e. land remaining after utilization of land deducted from the holding of proprietors by applying a pro rata cut on holdings required for common purposes vests in Mustarka Malkan from whom land had initially been taken common purposes and it does not vest in Gram Panchayat. It was further held that mutations earlier entered in the name of Gram Panchayat would not change legal position that land never belonged to Gram panchayat. 19. A Division Bench of this Court in Kala Singh v. Commissioner, Hisar Division and Ors. 1984 P.L.J. 169 relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. case (supra) held that where the land admittedly was reserved for common purposes during consolidation proceedings, such land belongs to proprietary body and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 20. A Division Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh and Ors. v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Anr. 1989 (1) R.R.R. 154 : 1988 P.L.J. 535 held that when land was described in the record of rights prior to consolidation as banjar and banjar qadim in individual cultivating possession of khewatdars and in column of cultivation recorded as in possession of Malkan (owners) while in column pertaining to assessment recorded as Bila Lagan Bawajah Kabza Sab Ka Hisedari (without payment of rent) being in possession of co-sharers, it would not fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh. 21. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Singh and Ors. 21. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab 1997 (1) P.L.J. 458 held that land reserved for common purpose by applying a pro rata cut continues to be vested with the owners. Only management passed over to Gram Panchayat and such land cannot be reserved for income of Gram Panchayat by applying pro rata cut on the proprietors of land during consolidation proceedings. It has further been held that unutilized land, after land utilized for common purpose, for which it is reserved is known as Bachat land and that the proprietors of the village are the co-owners of the Bachat land and can seek repartition. 22. Another Division Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat village Bhedpura v. The Additional Director Consolidation and Ors. (1997-1) 115 P.L.R. 391 and which Bench was presided over by the Honble Judge who decided the present cases, held that Bachat land should be redistributed to the proprietors from whom it was taken and if that was wrongly treated in the name of Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat does not become entitled to it. 23. In view of the consistent view taken by the Honble Supreme Court and this Court from time to time, it is clear that the Bachat Land i.e. land which remains unutilized after utilizing the land for the common purposes so provided under the Consolidation Scheme vests with the proprietors and not with the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, there is no material brought on the record of the case to show how a mutation came to be entered in favour of Gram Panchayat with regard to the land which was consistently shown in the record of rights as belonging to proprietors, the mutation entry in favour of the Gram Panchayat has to be completely ignored. 24. Taking into consideration the consistent view of the Apex Court as well as of the High Court and the facts of the present case, the Additional Director vide order dated 18.11.1981 has rightly directed to distribute Bachat area to the proprietors as the land in dispute has already been declared as Bachat land in the Consolidation Scheme. The Additional Director directed the Consolidation Officer to carry out division of respective shares from the Bachat Land. The Additional Director directed the Consolidation Officer to carry out division of respective shares from the Bachat Land. Moreover, the consolidation scheme has not been challenged by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat and mere is no dispute that the land in dispute is Bachat Land as per consolidation scheme and the Additional Director has not decided anything new as the land in dispute has already been declared as Bachat land. The petitioner Gram Panchayat has made out a case mat land in dispute has not been decided whether it is a Shamlat deh or Bachat land. The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in all these judgments the dispute was whether the land the land in dispute vests in the Panchayat or not, but in the present case, no such issue is there as the title of the case has already been decided in the consolidation scheme. 25. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1. 26. This petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 27. There will be no order as to costs.