JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) -- C. M. No. 14257-C of 2012 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by a common affidavit, delay of 66 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. Main Appeal : 1. Plaintiffs no.3 and 4, having been non-suited by both the courts below, have filed this second appeal. 2. Suit was filed by appellants and proforma respondents no.4 and 5 against respondents no.1 to 3 as defendants. Defendants no.1 and 2 are Haryana Government and Education Department, whereas defendant no.3 is Gram Panchayat. 3. Plaintiffs’ case is that suit land measuring 02 kanals 13 marlas comprising of killa no.30 has been used as Shamshan Bhumi (cremation ground/graveyard) and there are several Mandhis in the suit land, but defendant no.3 demolished the same with intent to raise school building there. Defendant no.3 has no right to do so. Accordingly, plaintiffs have sought declaration that the suit land is under the ownership of Proprietors for the purpose of graveyard and cannot be used for any other purpose. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the suit land for construction of primary school building and from using it for any other purpose has also been claimed. 4. Defendant no.3 contested the suit by filing written statement, which has also been adopted by defendants no.1 and 2. It was pleaded that suit land, which was used as Gadha Khad (manure pit) and was reserved for the said purpose during consolidation of holdings, is owned by defendant no.3 Gram Panchayat. Defendant no.3 has given the same to defendants no.1 and 2 for construction of school building. In the said land, five rooms, verandah, water tank and boundary wall exist for more than 15 years. Two new rooms and a verandah are under construction. On the other hand, other land measuring 11 kanals 09 marlas has been reserved as Shamshan Bhumi. Existence of any Mandhis in the suit land was denied. Plaint averments were broadly controverted. 5. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs no.3 and 4 have filed this second appeal. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 7. Whole emphasis on behalf of the plaintiffs, as canvassed by counsel for the appellants, is on entry in jamabandi for the year 1959-60. 5. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs no.3 and 4 have filed this second appeal. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 7. Whole emphasis on behalf of the plaintiffs, as canvassed by counsel for the appellants, is on entry in jamabandi for the year 1959-60. However, even the said entry in jamabandi does not help the appellants in any manner. According to jamabandi for the year 1959-60, the suit land is depicted to be in the ownership of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and in selfcultivating possession, but in Column No.8, Gair Mumkin Mandhi has been mentioned. Merely on the basis of stray solitary entry in Column No.8 of the said jamabandi, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the suit land was being used as cremation ground or graveyard. Even in the column of cultivation, it has not been depicted as graveyard nor it is so depicted in Column No. 8 of the said jamabandi. On the contrary, in the subsequent jamabandi for the year 1983-84 onwards, that suit land was depicted to be Gair Mumkin Gadha Khad. The plaintiffs have thus miserably failed to establish that the suit land was being used as cremation ground or graveyard. 8. On the other hand, photographs produced by the plaintiffs themselves in their evidence, depict the existence of old construction of four rooms in the suit land. Thus, plaintiffs’ own evidence negatives their case. 9. In addition to the aforesaid, plaintiffs also pleaded that one Laxman had constructed a room in the suit land in the memory of his wife Mathuri Devi. However, even the said room has been dedicated to the school, as per photographs produced by the plaintiffs themselves. Consequently, existence of the said room further negatives the claim of the plaintiffs. 10. It is also highly significant to notice that the suit land is measuring 02 kanals 13 marlas only. On the other hand, there is other 11 kanals 09 marlas land, which has been reserved as cremation ground, as per revenue documents on record. Thus, more than four times the area of the suit land, exists separately as cremation ground. There is practically no documentary evidence to depict that the suit land was ever used as cremation ground or graveyard. Thus, more than four times the area of the suit land, exists separately as cremation ground. There is practically no documentary evidence to depict that the suit land was ever used as cremation ground or graveyard. On the other hand, entire documentary evidence is contrary to the stand of the plaintiffs in this regard. 11. As regards relief of declaration sought by the plaintiffs, that the suit land is owned by Proprietors for the purpose of graveyard, jurisdiction of Civil Court to determine vesting or non-vesting of suit land in Gram Panchayat is barred by Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, as well as for other reasons recorded by the courts below, I find that the suit of the plaintiffs has been rightly dismissed by the courts below. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in this regard is fully justified by the overwhelming documentary evidence on record and is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, the said finding does not call for interference. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises of adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.