JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - CM No. 4184 of 2011 Exemption is allowed as prayed for. CM No. 4185 of 2011 Application is allowed. Delay of 143 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 4186 of 2011 Application is allowed. Delay of 133 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 1532 of 2011 2. Present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 6.7.2010, whereby a writ petition claiming a writ of certiorari for setting aside the orders dated 4.6.2002, 14.1.2003 and 2.12.2004 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ferozepur Jhirka, the Collector Gurgaon and the Commissioner, Gurgaon, Division Gurgaon were dismissed. 3. Learned Single Judge has returned a finding on the basis of the orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) that the land, in dispute, is a Banjar Qadim land and thus, it could not be in cultivating possession of the appellant before 26.1.1950 so as to confer the right of ownership in terms of Proviso (iii) of Section 2(g) of the Act. 4. Appellant claims to be in possession of Khasra No. 2064, 3122 and 3219. Appellant relies upon the jamabandi for the year 1946-47 to contend that Khasra No. 3219, measuring 2 bighas 7 biswas is a Bhud land and not a Banjar Qadim and therefore, the finding recorded by the authorities and affirmed by learned Single Judge are not correct. 5. We find that such argument is not tenable. In the jambandies for the years 1938-39, 1942-43 and the jamabandi in the subsequent year 1950-51, land comprising in Khasra No. 3219 is described as Banjar Qadim. Therefore, it transpires that the description of land Bhud in the jamabandi for the year 1946-47 is a stray entry and does not change the nature of the land, which is evident from the previous and subsequent jamabandies. 6. The land which is Banjar Qadim cannot be said to be in cultivating possession of the appellant, which may confer him any right to claim title over the property. The land described as Bhud is also nothing but a land which is uncultivable. 7. 6. The land which is Banjar Qadim cannot be said to be in cultivating possession of the appellant, which may confer him any right to claim title over the property. The land described as Bhud is also nothing but a land which is uncultivable. 7. In view of the said fact, we do not find any error in the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 6.7.2011 which may warrant interference in appeal. Dismissed. ------------------