JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioners have sought quashing of the order passed by the Collector, Patiala, whereby petition filed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), by Gram Panchayat, Bhagsi, has been allowed and the management and control of the alleged abadi deh area of petitioner-proprietors has been allowed in favour of the Gram Panchayat. 2. As averred in the petition, Gram Panchayat of Bhagsi and Haripur have two separate revenue estates. During the consolidation proceedings held in the year 1954, area of 25 bighas 16 biswas was separately kept as abadi deh in Village Haripur hadbast No.190 and another area of 90 acres 1 biswa was kept as shamlat deh. It is stated that river flows near the village Haripur and the abadi deh used to be flooded with water. The residents of the area shifted to nearby place, which is less then 2 K.Ms from the village and this now falls under District Panchkula. The petitioners claim to be having sheds and cattle heaps of fodder in the area of village Haripur. 3. Gram Panchayat, Bhagsi, decided to file a petition under Section 11 of the Act, claiming title to the abadi deh of Village Haripur before Collector, Patiala, on 12.3.2001. The Collector passed the order, giving management and control of the land measuring 25 bighas 16 biswas to the Gram Panchayat, Bhagsi, on 17.10.2002. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed on 12.8.2005. The petitioners have now approached this Court, urging that abadi deh area does not fall within the definition of shamlat deh and as such, provisions of the Act would not be applicable to such land. It is accordingly pleaded that the Collector and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the abadi deh land in the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act. 4. Written statement on behalf of Gram Panchayat, Bhagsi, is filed. It is disclosed that there is no population in village Haripur and so there is no abadi in the village. Accordingly, the entire control of Village Haripur land is given to the Gram Panchayat, Village Bhagsi. It is further stated that the petitioners have no concern and have nothing to do with the land in question. It is disclosed that there is no population in village Haripur and so there is no abadi in the village. Accordingly, the entire control of Village Haripur land is given to the Gram Panchayat, Village Bhagsi. It is further stated that the petitioners have no concern and have nothing to do with the land in question. As per respondent Gram Panchayat, the petitioners have no documents to show that they ever resided in Village Haripur, which is under the management and control of respondent-Panchayat and hence, no interference in the impugned orders would be called for. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 6. The sole submission made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the abadi deh would not fall under the definition of ‘shamlat deh’ having been specifically excluded as per Section 2 (1)(g) of the Act and hence, the Collector had no jurisdiction to deal with the application filed by respondent-Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Act. The counsel has relied on two judgements reported as Sardara Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 199 and Phuman Ram and others Vs. Munshi Ram and others, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 600 in support of his plea. In Sardara Ram’s case (supra), it is only observed that vesting of abadi deh in Gram Panchayat must be determined on evidence on record and by passing a speaking order with some discussion. This judgement does not in any manner say that the abadi deh can not vest in Gram Panchayat. In Phuman Ram’s case (supra), it has been held that abadi deh has been expressly excluded from the definition of ‘shamlat deh’ and authorities under the Act would be entitled to adjudicate only if the land is described in the revenue records as ‘shamlat deh’. In respect of other land, the jurisdiction would be of Civil Court, which remains intact. In this judgement, the Court was only dealing with the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act to deal with the land, which is shamlat land and not that the same can not be managed or vested in Gram Panchayat. 7. Even otherwise this issue is only academic in this case. This question would have required examination only if there had been any abadi or population in the Village. 7. Even otherwise this issue is only academic in this case. This question would have required examination only if there had been any abadi or population in the Village. It is even conceded by the petitioners that because of river action, they are not staying in the Village and they have shifted to a place which is 2 K.Ms away from Village Haripur. The place where the petitioners are residing now fall in the State of Haryana, whereas the land is situated in the State of Punjab. In the memo of parties, the petitioners have given their address of District Panchkula, State of Haryana, which is an obvious indication that the petitioners are not residing at Village Haripur. It is specifically stated in the reply that there is no population in Village Haripur and hence, there is no abadi. The land in question, thus, can not be described as abadi deh. It can not be taken as such. That being the position, the competency of the authorities under the Act to deal with this land can not be questioned. Moreover, the petitioners have impugned the appellate order passed on 12.8.2005 in March 2010, almost after five years. This delay has not been explained in any manner. It seems that the petitioners have suddenly woken up and are making an attempt to try their luck to occupy this land located in even different State, they being resident of neighbouring State. 8. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------