JUDGMENT K. Kannan, J.:- The writ petition challenges the orders passed by the revenue authorities by which the petitioner was ordered to be ejected under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act of 1961. The petition had been filed by the 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat, Alhoran, seeking for eviction on the ground that the property was shamlat deh and vested in the panchayat. In purported proof of the contention of the panchayat, a reference was made to the jamabandi for the year 1985-86 that described the property in khewat 636, khatauni 968 the property as ‘gram panchayat deh’ and the name of the owner was, as in the remarks columns, entered as ‘Bila Lagan Bawaja Najaij Kabaza’. The authorities had found that the petitioner had not proved that he had been in possession of the property before 1950 and further held that the fact that the property had been entered as shamlat deh was sufficient to hold that the property was unlawfully in occupation of the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel states that there had been no proof that the property belonged to shamlat deh and that the property had become vested with the panchayat on the day when the shamlat law came into force. According to him, a mere reference to the property as ‘panchayat deh’ cannot mean that the property belonged to the panchayat. The entry itself was made only in jamabandi in 1985-86 and without any proof that the property had been described as vesting with the panchayat or held for common purposes of the panchayat on the day when shamlat law came into force, the authority could not have passed the order of eviction. The learned counsel refers to a decision of this Court in Gurnam Singh Versus Gram Panchayat village Mangoli and others-1988 PLJ 520, where this Court held as follows:- 5........The Gram Panchayat produced documents from Kharif 1965 onwards, whereas, the requirement of law is to see the position as it emerged when the Shamilat Law, i.e. 1954 Act came into force. The learned counsel refers to a decision of this Court in Gurnam Singh Versus Gram Panchayat village Mangoli and others-1988 PLJ 520, where this Court held as follows:- 5........The Gram Panchayat produced documents from Kharif 1965 onwards, whereas, the requirement of law is to see the position as it emerged when the Shamilat Law, i.e. 1954 Act came into force. If the Gram Panchayat had been able to show that when the Shamilat Law came into force, the land in dispute was recorded as Shamilat and was being used for common purposes of the village, it would have vested in the Gram Panchayat and then it would have been for Gurnam Singh to show that his case fell within one of the exceptions contained in Section 2(g) of the Act, which defines Shamilat Deh and provides as to which land would not be Shamilat Deh. 6. Mr. T.S.Mangat, Advocate, who appeared for the Gram Panchayat was pointedly asked if he could show that keeping in view the definition of Shamilat contained in Section 2(g) of the Act, whether there was any material on the record to prove that the land in dispute was Shamilat. He was unable to refer to any evidence prior to Kharif 1965. Under the circumstances, the Commissioner was right in coming to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat failed to prove that the land in dispute was Shamilat Deh. Accordingly, no proceedings for ejectment against Gurnam Singh could be started...................” 3. The learned counsel further points out that even the reference in column 3 that the property had been described to be as “Bila Lagan Bawaja Najaij Kabza” only meant ‘without payment of rent’. It did not mean that the property vested in the panchayat. I have had an occasion to deal with this situation in yet another judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.12349 of 1990, decided on 05.05.2011, to hold that a property cannot be assumed to be a shamlat deh unless there was proof rendered to show that the property had become vested with the panchayat on the day when the shamlat law came into force. 4. The orders of eviction made by the authorities were, therefore, unjustified and liable to be quashed. They are, accordingly, quashed and the writ petition is allowed. -----------0.K.B.0------------