Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Collector, whereby the respondent-Gram Panchayat was ordered to recover the lease money for the period 30.4.1993 to 28.8.2000 from the petitioners with regard to the land in dispute; as well as the order dated 12.11.2004 passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the aforesaid order. 2. In the present case, with regard to the land in dispute, a mutation was entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners filed a case before the Director, Consolidation claiming possession and ownership in the disputed land, which was decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat on 4.3.1991. Against the said order, the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 17077 of 1991. In the said petition, this Court vide order dated 20.5.1992 stayed dispossession of the petitioners subject to the condition that in case the dispute is finally decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat then the petitioners will be liable to pay Chakota to the Gram Panchayat from the date of institution of the petition till the date of disposal of the writ petition. It is admitted case that on 20.8.2000 this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition while coming to the conclusion that the Director Consolidation has no power to go into the question whether the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh or not or the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It was held that this question can only be decided by the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In view of the said finding, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the Gram Panchayat to recover the lease money from the petitioners in accordance with the interim order. 3. In view of the aforesaid order, the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 for recovery of the amount in question as lease money for the period 30.4.1993 to 28.8.2000 from the petitioners and the said petition was allowed by the Collector vide impugned order dated 18.12.2001. 4. 4. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed a title suit under Section 11 of the Act against the Gram Panchayat for declaring them as owners in possession of the suit land, though initially the said suit was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 15.6.2001. However, on appeal filed by the petitioners, the order of the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner and the petitioners were declared owners of the suit land while observing as under: In this case the primary question which arises for consideration is that on what basis the Gram Panchayat has derived its title over the suit land. From the record it is clear that the Gram Panchayat claims the ownership of the suit land on the strength of a mutation sanctioned in its favour of the basis of a Govt. letter. It has been held by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court that any mutation sanctioned, in the name of Gram Panchayat on the basis of a Govt. letter has no value and can be ignored while deciding the question of title of the suit land. Therefore, mutation No. 458, dated 14.7.1956 sanctioned in favour of Gram Panchayat can not be relied upon per se. In the absence of this mutation, the character of the land would continue to be .Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat implying that the suit land is the property of the proprietors/right holders of the village of which they had been in possession to the extent of their shares much prior to 26.01.50. This would also negate the ownership claim of the Gram Panchayat based on the leasing out of the land which, in any case, has not been upheld by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1997(2) P.L.J. 3. In these circumstances, the Gram Panchayat cannot be held to be the owner of the suit land/as it does not come within the purview of Shamlat Land defined Under Section 2(g) of the Act. 5. It has also come on record that the suit land was Banjar Qadim on 9.01.54 and was not used for any common purposes of the village. As held in 1988 P.L.J. 535 such land is not Shamlat Deh. Taking all these facts into account. 5. It has also come on record that the suit land was Banjar Qadim on 9.01.54 and was not used for any common purposes of the village. As held in 1988 P.L.J. 535 such land is not Shamlat Deh. Taking all these facts into account. I have no hesitation in accepting the appeal and declaring the appellants as owners of the suit land under their respective possession by setting aside the impugned order dated 15.06.2001. 6. The Gram Panchayat filed C.W.P. No. 5852 of 2002 against the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner and this Court vide order dated April 10, 2002 dismissed the writ petition of the Gram Panchayat while observing as under: We find absolutely no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner. A finding of fact has been recorded that the land did not fall within the definition of Shamlat land so as to make the respondent subject to ejectment. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel that as the land had vested in the Gram Panchayat under the PEPSU Act much prior to 1961, it was deemed to have vested in the Gram Panchayat in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the 1961 Act. We find that this issue had not been raised before either of the authorities and being a question of fact cannot be raised for the fust time in these proceedings. We accordingly find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that the Gram Panchayat filed S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12060 of 2002 before the Supreme Court and the said SLP was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2003. 7 We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders. 8. Counsel for the petitioners contends that since the petitioners have been declared owners in possession of the land in dispute up to the Supreme Court, therefore, the lease money can not be recovered from the petitioners because they have used the land in dispute even for the aforesaid period being owners in possession of the said land. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders, we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. 10. In view of the aforesaid orders, admittedly the petitioners were declared to be the owners of the disputed land. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders, we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. 10. In view of the aforesaid orders, admittedly the petitioners were declared to be the owners of the disputed land. Once the petitioners have been declared owners of the land in dispute by the competent court and the said order has become final up to the Supreme Court, then in our opinion, the respondent-Gram Panchayat cannot recover the lease money for the period 30.4.1993 to 28.8.2000 for use and occupation because in the interim order dated 20.5.1992 passed in C.W.P. No. 17077 of 1991 it was ordered that the Gram Panchayat will be entitled to recover the lease money from the petitioners if they fail to prove their title over the land in dispute. Once the petitioners have been declared owners of the land in dispute in a legal suit filed by the petitioners against the Gram Panchayat, they will be deemed to be owners from the very beginning and the Gram Panchayat who has lost up to the Supreme Court, cannot recover the Chakota regarding the land in dispute from the petitioners even on the ground that the title suit filed by the petitioners was decreed after the order passed by the Collector under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure P-5) and 12.11.2004 (Annexure P-6) are set aside.