JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J. (Oral): - Petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court by way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 31.5.2010 passed by Collector, Panipat, whereby suit filed by plaintiff/petitioners under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act as applicable to Haryana for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land according to hasab rasad rakba malkiyati and the mutation sanctioned in favour of defendant-gram panchayat is illegal, void, ineffective and without jurisdiction, was dismissed, as well as against the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division and order dated 8.6.2011 passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby appeal/revision filed by petitioners was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioners have filed suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act applicable to Haryana, as amended upto date, under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC for declaration to the effect that petitioners are owners in possession of the suit land according to hasab rasad rakba malkiyati and the mutation No.526 sanctioned on 11.6.1964 in the name of respondent No.4 is illegal, void, ineffective, without jurisdiction and is not binding upon the rights of the petitioners as the land is banjar qadim thoor and according to revenue record land in question was never used/reserved for common purpose, therefore, land does not vest in the gram panchayat and comes under exemption clause of Section 2(g) of the Act or in the alternative for possession of the suit land. Gram panchayat has filed written statement contending that plaintiffs have no right to file present suit; gram panchayat had been allotting the disputed land on lease; trees and plants have been planted on the land measuring 40 acres of land; plaintiffs had never been in possession and are not in possession over the disputed land; mutation No.526 has been rightly made in favour of the gram panchayat; disputed land is being used for shamilat purposes from the very beginning. 3. Learned Collector/trial Court has recorded the finding that during the consolidation in the jamabandi for the year 1967-68 Ex. P-3 gram panchayat is shown as owner of the land and in the column of cultivation makbuja gram panchayat is entered. 3. Learned Collector/trial Court has recorded the finding that during the consolidation in the jamabandi for the year 1967-68 Ex. P-3 gram panchayat is shown as owner of the land and in the column of cultivation makbuja gram panchayat is entered. It has further been observed by learned Collector that of course there is entry of banjar qadim in the jamabandi for the year 1954-55, but the co-sharers have not proved that on which part of the land, from which year, they are occupying the possession continuously; gram panchayat has been leasing out the land since long, however, on the part of the suit land there is a pond (johar); pond is being used for shamilat purpose; gram panchayat has planted trees on some portion of the land in dispute and ultimately dismissed the suit vide impugned order dated 31.5.2010. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment passed by learned Collector, dismissing the suit, petitioner/plaintiffs preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak. Learned First Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 10.3.2011. Thereafter petitioners filed statutory revision before the Financial Commissioner, which too was dismissed vide impugned order dated 8.6.2011. Learned Appellate Authority as well as learned Revisional Authority, having perused the record, have recorded the finding of fact that land in question was mutated in favour of gram panchayat way back on 11.6.1964, therefore, petitioners have no legal right to challenge it after more than 40 years. It has further been observed that petitioners have failed to produce relevant record i.e. sharat wajib-ul-arj, copy of consolidation scheme and jamabadi for the year prior to 1954 to prove that land in question was not reserved or used for the common purposes of the village. It has further been observed that there is pond (johar) in part of the land in question and trees were planted by the gram panchayat and the land in question is being used for the common purposes as shamilat deh. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. 6. There is a specific finding by all the three different revenue authorities that land is recorded as panchayat land right from the year 1964. Petitioners have not challenged these entries and remained mum for more than 40 years. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. 6. There is a specific finding by all the three different revenue authorities that land is recorded as panchayat land right from the year 1964. Petitioners have not challenged these entries and remained mum for more than 40 years. In the jamabandi for the year 1964 land was recorded as land of gram panchayat and in the column of cultivation as makbuja gram panchayat. Even as per the jamabandi, in part of the land johar is entered. Gram panchayat has taken specific stand, which has been rightly accepted by all the Courts below that land was being used for common purposes and there is a pond on the part of the property and trees have been planted by the gram panchayat. Petitioners have failed to prove their continuous possession from 1964 when mutation was sanctioned in favour of gram panchayat. If petitioners are not in possession for more than last forty years, petitioners cannot be permitted to agitate question of title after almost four decades. Long standing entries in revenue record give rise to a presumption to its correctness as per Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Presumption of long standing entries can be rebutted by cogent, reliable and positive evidence. In the opinion of this Court, petitioners are not able to rebut the presumption. No positive, cogent and reliable evidence is produced on the record. Otherwise also, relief of possession as claimed by the petitioners in alternative is also hopelessly time barred. 7. There is a concurrent finding of fact by all the three Courts below that land is being used for the common purposes and is recorded as property of the panchayat from 1964; plaintiffs did not challenge the entry for long 40 years, therefore, I do not find any valid reason to take contrary view. Petition is, thus, dismissed in limine. ----------0BSK0----------