JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - By way of this order, we shall dispose of two writ petitions, namely, CWP No.7728 of 2010 titled as “Gurmail Singh and another Vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others” [for short “first petition”] and CWP No.8786 of 2010 titled as “Chhota Singh and another Vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others” [for short “second petition”] as similar orders dated 31.03.2008 and dated 04.09.2009 have been assailed in both the writ petitions. 2. In the first petition, it is alleged that father of the petitioners, namely, Ralla son of Harnam Singh @ Harnama, was a permanent resident and Khewatdar of village Boran, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib and was in continuous cultivating possession of land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.131/142, Khasra Nos.175 (1B-6B), 177 (3B-3B) and 433 (1B-10B), total measuring 5 Bighas 19 Biswas, and after his death, as per jamabandis for the year 1947-48 (Annexure P-1) and 1955-56 (Annexure P-2), petitioners are in possession thereof. As per Missal Haqiat/Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (Annexure P-3), the above Khasra numbers were converted into new Khasra Nos.29//21(8-0) and 22/1/1(3-8), total measuring 11K-8M. 3. In the second petition, it is alleged that earlier Pritam Singh, Mukand Singh, Gurdev Singh and Bachan Singh sons of Kartar Singh, permanent residents and Khewatdars of village Boran, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, were in possession as per their shares in the land comprised in Khewat No.54, Khatauni No.124/136, Khasra No.450(0-17), 452(3-11), 972(3-7), total measuring 7 Bighas 15 Biswas, as per Jamabandi for the year 1947-48 till 09.12.1966 but when Angrej Kaur widow of Pritam Singh, Bachan Singh, Mukand Singh sons of Kartar Singh son of Mehar Singh sold this land, vide registered sale deed dated 20.12.1966, to Gind Kaur wife of Harminder Singh, for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-, she stepped into the shoes of Pritam Singh etc. The suit land was further purchased by the petitioners from Gind Kaur on 10.06.1968 and stepped into her shoes. It is alleged that after consolidation, as per Missal Haqiat/Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (Annexure P-3), the above Khasra numbers have been converted into Khasra Nos.38/11(8-0) and 20/1(4-0), total measuring 12K-0M. 4. The suit land was further purchased by the petitioners from Gind Kaur on 10.06.1968 and stepped into her shoes. It is alleged that after consolidation, as per Missal Haqiat/Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (Annexure P-3), the above Khasra numbers have been converted into Khasra Nos.38/11(8-0) and 20/1(4-0), total measuring 12K-0M. 4. In both the petitions, the petitioners filed petitions under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Punjab [for short “1961 Act”], before the Collector/Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Fatehgarh Sahib, which were dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have failed to prove their continuous possession since 26.01.1950. Their appeals were also dismissed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the 1961 Act). 5. In both the petitions, counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per jamabandi for the year 1947-48, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners have been shown in cultivating possession, as per their shares, prior to 26.01.1950, hence, the land in dispute stood excluded from the purview of shamilat deh, in terms of Sections 2(g)(viii) and 4(3)(ii) of the 1961 Act. 6. In reply, counsel for the Gram Panchayat has submitted that the land is recorded as shamilat deh hasab hisas paimana malkiat and a mutation No.357 was sanctioned on 16.01.1958, without there being any objection. It is also alleged that the land in dispute has vested in Gram Panchayat, in terms of Section 3 of the Act, as it was neither partitioned nor it had ever come into separate individual cultivating possession of the petitioners, on or before 26.01.1950. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the provisions of Sections 2(g)(viii) and 4(3)(ii) of the 1961 Act, which are reproduced as under: “2(g) “shamilat deh” includes-- (1) to (5) xxx xxx xxx but does not include land which-- (i) to (vii) xxx xxx xxx (viii) was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950; or” “4. Vesting of rights in Panchayat and nonproprietors.-- (3) Nothing contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) shall affect or shall be deemed ever to have affected the:- (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) rights of persons in cultivating possession of shamilat deh, for more than twelve years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon;” 9. According to Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act, in order to exclude the land from shamilat deh, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to prove that the said land was assessed to land revenue and has been in individual cultivating possession, not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh, on or before 26.01.1950. Section 4(3)(ii) provides exclusion of land from vesting in Panchayat, if it is proved that the person was in cultivating possession for more than 12 years immediately preceding the commencement of the 1961 Act, i.e., 22.04.1961, without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon. 10. The petitioners have placed on record jamabandi for the year 1947-48 (Annexure P-1) in order to show that the shamilat deh majkur is recorded in the column of ownership and column no.5 reflects names of the petitioners/their predecessors-in-interest as shareholders in equal shares, but at the same time, the land has been shown as banjar qadim in column no.8 of the jamabandi. The said entry continued in jamabandi for the year 1955-56 (Annexure P-2). 11. The question, thus, arises is that “whether the land, which has been recorded as banjar qadim in the revenue record, can be treated to be in cultivating possession of the individuals, as per their share”? It is relevant to mention here that banjar qadim is the land which remained uncultivated for 8 consecutive harvests and, therefore, is an old fallow. The land in dispute, as reflected in the jamabandi Annexure P-1, has been shown as banjar qadim, thereby raising an inference that it was not in “cultivating possession” of the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest so as to exclude it from Shamilat Deh. The Legislature has consciously used the word “cultivating possession” in Sections 2(g)(viii) and 4(3)(ii) of the 1961 Act as opposed to mere “possession”. The Legislature has consciously used the word “cultivating possession” in Sections 2(g)(viii) and 4(3)(ii) of the 1961 Act as opposed to mere “possession”. In the absence of any evidence of cultivating possession before 26.01.1950, the land cannot be excluded from shamilat deh whether under Section 2(g)(viii) or Section 4(3) (ii) of the 1961 Act. The expression “cultivating possession” has to be given its literal meaning and mere possession, as suggested by counsel for the petitioners, cannot raise an inference of cultivating possession. 12. No other argument has been raised. 13. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the authorities concerned have not committed any error while passing the impugned orders because the case of the petitioners is not covered either under Section 2(g)(viii) or Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act. Hence, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. No costs. 14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.