JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - CM No.2633 of 2012 CM is allowed. Copies of jamabandis for the years 2001-02 and 2006-07 (Annexures R-3 and R-4) are taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.18291 of 2008 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 21.3.2007 passed by Director Land Records, Punjab, Jallandhar. 2. The Director Land Records ordered partition, amongst proprietors (respondents no. 2 to 8), of land measuring 92 Kanals-15 Marlas and 75 Kanals-10 Marlas, entered in the revenue record as Gram Panchayat Deh and also directed that the name of the Gram Panchayat be deleted from the column of cultivation. 3. The Gram Panchayat filed a review petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “1948 Act”) pleading that as on the date fixed, the case was not shown in the list, it could not be defended by the Gram Panchayat. The petition was dismissed by holding that the Director has no power of review. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the land in dispute is recorded as ownership of the Gram Panchayat, the Director, Consolidation, had no jurisdiction, in view of the prohibition contained in section 13 and the provisions of Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “1961 Act”), to entertain or decide any petition relating to any right, title or interest of a Gram Panchayat in land allotted during consolidation. Reliance for this argument is placed upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Gram Panchayat, Nurpur Versus State of Punjab and others 1997(1) PLJ 268 and Gram Panchayat Village Sidh Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 313. It is also contended that the Director, Land Records had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition 49 years after conclusion of consolidation proceedings and then also without assigning any reason. 5. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that as the land in dispute was wrongly recorded as ownership of the Gram Panchayat, during consolidation, the Director Land Records has merely rectified this error. It is further submitted that as the land in dispute was never reserved or used for any common purpose, it does not vest in a Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that as the land in dispute was never reserved or used for any common purpose, it does not vest in a Gram Panchayat. Section 13 or 13-A of the 1961 Act do not prohibit consolidation authorities from rectifying errors committed during consolidation proceedings or orders passed thereunder. It is further prayed that as the land in dispute is recorded as ownership of the private respondents under “ the 1948 Act”, there is no error in the impugned order, much less an error of jurisdiction. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and impugned orders. 7. The Director Land Records has, by way of the impugned order, reopened consolidation proceedings after a gap of 49 years. Section 42 of the Act postulates that the State may “at any time” call for the records of any proceeding or order to satisfy itself as to its legality. The expression “at any time” can not be construed to grant a licence to the State, or its delegate to reopen consolidation proceedings, after inordinate and unexplained delay. The private respondents have not offered any explanation for delay of nearly half a century in approaching the Director and nor has the Director Land Records recorded any reason for entertaining this petition after 49 years. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that in the absence of any explanation, much less a cogent explanation for delay in filing the petition, the Director Land Records had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition 49 years after conclusion of consolidation proceedings. 8. The impugned order is even otherwise illegal and void, for want of jurisdiction. The land, in dispute, as is apparent from the petition filed by private respondents, was created after applying a pro rata cut on the holdings of proprietors and was, therefore, reserved “.............for the Gram Panchayat and for other common purposes..............”, in accordance with Sections 18 and 23 (A) of the 1948 Act and Rule 16 (ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules,1949 (hereinafter referred to as the “1949 Rules”). Rule 16 (ii) of the 1949 Rules provides that land created after applying a pro rata cut on the holdings of proprietors shall be called “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran” and though ownership of such land shall continue to vest in proprietors, its management and control shall vest in the Gram Panchayat. Rule 16 (ii) of the 1949 Rules provides that land created after applying a pro rata cut on the holdings of proprietors shall be called “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran” and though ownership of such land shall continue to vest in proprietors, its management and control shall vest in the Gram Panchayat. Rule 16(ii) of the 1949 Rules, reads as follows: “ Rule 16 (i) XX XX XX 16 (ii) In an estate or estates where during consolidation proceedings there is no shamlat deh land or such land is considered inadequate, land shall be reserved for the village Panchayat and for other common purposes, under section 18(c) of the Act, out of the common pool of the village [at the scale given in the Schedule to these rules]. Proprietary rights in respect of land so reserved (except the area reserved for the extension of abadi of proprietors and non-proprietors) shall vest in the proprietary body of the estate or estates concerned and it shall be entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as (Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba). The management of such land shall be done by the Panchayat of the estate or estates concerned on behalf of the village proprietary body and the Panchayat shall have the right to utilize the income derived from the land so reserved for the common needs and the benefits of the estate or estates concerned.” 9. The Director Land Records was conscious of the fact that the land is “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” but treated the land as “Bachat Land” while directing that it be re-distributed amongst proprietors. Admittedly, the land in dispute, was created during consolidation proceedings after applying a pro rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors and was recorded as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”. We would like to reiterate that the expressions “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” and “Bachat Land” are neither synonymous nor interchangable as the former refers to land created after applying a pro rata cut on the holdings of proprietors whereas the latter refers to land left out after creation of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. Bachat Land is generally redistributed at the time of consolidation. 10. Bachat Land is generally redistributed at the time of consolidation. 10. The question whether the Director Land Records can deal with the land, which has been allotted to the Gram Panchayat and direct partition of such land on the ground that it is Bachat Land, has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Village Sidh Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 313. by holding that a dispute whether land vests in a Gram Panchayat or is Bachat Land, can only be decided by the Collector exercising power under section 11 of the 1961 Act. The Director Land Records had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and direct redistribution of land amongst proprietors on the specious argument that it is a Bachat Land. We would also like to clarify that mere possession of the “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” by a proprietor, does not nullify the presumption raised under Rule 16(ii) of the 1949 Rules that the land was reserved “............for the Gram Panchayat and for other common purposes.........”. We would like to emphasis that if the land is recorded as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”, a presumption arises under Rule 16 (ii) of the 1949 Rules that the land was reserved “.............for the Gram Panchayat and for other common purposes........”. The Director Land Records lost sight of rule 16 (ii) of the 1949 Rules and allowed the petition, without considering this aspect. 11. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside, leaving it to the private respondents to seek their appropriate remedy as per law before the Collector, exercising power under section 11 of the 1961 Act.