JUDGMENT SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 29.1.1982 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nuh, whereby the petitioner (now deceased through his LRs) was ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute measuring 72 kanals 12 marlas, situated in village Jangal, after holding that the land in question vested in the Gram Panchayat and possession of the petitioner over the said land is illegal and unauthorised; as well as against the order dated 31.5.1983 (Annexure P-4), whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Collector, Gurgaon. In this case, the Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Nuh, filed application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As Applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner from the land in question, claiming therein that it vested in the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner has illegally and unauthorisedly occupied the same. Initially, vide order dated 22.7.1980 (Annexure P-1), the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, after hearing counsel for the parties, summarily dismissed the said application, while holding that the land in question was not shamilat deh and as such, did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the Social Education and Panchayat Officer filed appeal before the Collector, who vide order dated 31.12.1980 allowed the appeal while holding that the Assistant Collector could not decide the question of title summarily, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector with a direction to exercise his power under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act by converting the eviction application into a title suit and then after framing the issues and providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence, decide the question of title, by adopting the procedure prescribed under the Act to decide the title suit. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, after remand, vide order dated 29.1.1982, allowed the application filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner being in illegal and unauthorised possession of the land in question was ordered to be ejected therefrom. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, on the pleadings of the parties, had framed the following issues : 1) Whether the land in dispute comes within the definition of shamilat deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat ? The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, on the pleadings of the parties, had framed the following issues : 1) Whether the land in dispute comes within the definition of shamilat deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat ? OPP 2) Whether the respondent is in un-authorised possession of the land in dispute ? OPP Both the parties were afforded opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. Finally, issues No.1 and 2 were decided against the petitioner. It was held that in the revenue record, the land in dispute was shown as shamilat deh, therefore, in view of Section 2 (g) (1) of the Act, such land vested in the Gram Panchayat. The contention of the petitioner that in the revenue record, the land in dispute was recorded as Banjar Qadim and was not shown to be used for the common purpose of the village, was not accepted, as according to clause 2 of `Sharat Wazib-Ul-Arz' of 1938-39, it was recorded that the shamilat deh was reserved for the charagah and was not to be divided among the proprietors. On issue No.2, the petitioner was found to be in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the land in question. The said order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 31.5.1983 and the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on both the issues were affirmed. Before the Collector, the petitioner raised two contentions. Firstly, that the petitioner was owner of the land in dispute, as he had purchased the same from one Loku Ram, who was declared owner of the said land by the civil court. Secondly, that the land in question does not fall under the definition of shamilat deh, as this land was belonging to Patti and was never used for the common purpose of the village. Both these contentions were rejected and it was held that the petitioner neither produced on record any sale deed nor the alleged decree in favour of his vendor. Rather in his statement before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, he had stated that he did not know as to from whom he had purchased the land in dispute or whether he was in possession of shamilat deh or not. Rather in his statement before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, he had stated that he did not know as to from whom he had purchased the land in dispute or whether he was in possession of shamilat deh or not. Regarding the second contention, it was held that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove that the land in dispute was the Patti land and the same does not fall under the definition of shamilat deh. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Collector was also dismissed. Though the order of the Commissioner has not been annexed with the petition, but in the petition, it has been stated that the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine, without passing any speaking order. Feeling aggrieved against the orders, passed by the authorities under the Act, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders as well as the revenue record shown to us during the course of arguments. In the jamabandis for the year 1938-39, 1955-56, and 1961-62, the land in question was described as Shamilat Deh Patti Alla Bakhsh 2/3 share and Patti Bhimra 1/3 share, in possession of Makbuja Malkan. The nature of the land was recorded as Banjar Qadim. It has come in evidence, as has been mentioned in the order of the Assistant Collector, that for the first time, the land in dispute was cultivated in the year 1969 by the petitioner after un-authorisedly occupying the same. The `Sharat Wazib-Ul-Arz' of 1938-39 was also placed on record. According to clause 2 of the Sharat Wazib-Ul-Arz, by which shamilat deh in the village was created, it was specifically observed that the Banjar Qadim land shall be reserved for the charagah (a common purpose of the village) and shall not be divided among the proprietors. It has also been mentioned that income from the shamilat deh shall be used for the purpose of digging the Johar or construction of Masjid and for their maintenance. On the basis of these documents on record, a finding was recorded by the authorities under the Act that the land in dispute falls under the definition of `shamilat deh' as defined in Section 2 (g) (1) of the Act and vested in the Gram Panchayat. On the basis of these documents on record, a finding was recorded by the authorities under the Act that the land in dispute falls under the definition of `shamilat deh' as defined in Section 2 (g) (1) of the Act and vested in the Gram Panchayat. It has been further held that the land in dispute, which was shown as Banjar Qadim in the revenue record, was used for the common purpose of the village and thus vested in the Gram Panchayat. In our opinion, in view of the aforesaid factual position recorded in the revenue record, the authorities under the Act have rightly come to the above conclusion. In our opinion, in view of the aforesaid factual position recorded in the revenue record, the authorities under the Act have rightly come to the above conclusion. Section 2 (g) of the Act reads as under : “shamilat deh” includes - (1) lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat deh or Charand excluding abadi deh; (2) shamilat tikkas; (3) lands described in the revenue records as shamilat, tarafs, pattis, pannas and tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village; (4) lands used or reserved for the benefit of village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking wells or ponds situated within the sabha area as defined in clause (mmm) of section 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, excluding lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the State Government under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act; (4a) vacant land situate in abadi deh or gorah deh not owned by any person; (5) lands in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village according to revenue records; *(Proviso omitted by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992) but does not include land which - (i) becomes or has become shamilat deh due to river action or has been reserved as shamilat in villages subject to river action except shamilat deh entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue records; (ii) has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person; (ii-a) was shamilat deh, but has been allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government, after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985; (iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before the 26th January, 1950; (iv) having been acquired before the 26th January, 1950, by a person by purchase or in exchange for proprietary land from a co-sharer in the shamilat deh and is so recording in the jamabandi or is supported by a valid deed; (v) is described in the revenue records as shamilat, taraf, pattis, pannas, and thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village; (vi) lies outside the abadi deh and was being used as gitwar, bara, manure pit, house or for cottage industry, immediately before the commencement of this Act; (vii) Omitted by Haryana Act No. 18 of 1995 (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 (ix) is used as a place of worship or for purposes subservient thereto. In Shri Shiv Charan Singh and others v. Gram Panchayat Narike and another, 1977 PLJ 453, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that all the sub-clauses of section 2 (g) of the Act are independent of each other and do not govern or circumscribe the scope of each other in any manner. According to clause (1) of Section 2 (g), lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat Deh or Charand excluding abadi deh, fall under the definition of `shamilat deh'. Undisputedly, the land in dispute is recorded as shamilat deh in the revenue record and according to Sharat Wazib-Ul-Arz' of 1938-39, it was reserved for the charagah and was not to be divided among the proprietors. Therefore, such land clearly falls under the definition of `shamilat deh' and thus vests in the Gram Panchayat. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the shamilat deh belongs to Patti, therefore, clause (3) of section 2 (g) of the Act will apply and according to the said clause, only lands described in the revenue records as shamilat, tarafs, pattis, pannas and tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village, fall under the definition of `shamilat deh'. But according to the learned counsel, in this case, in the revenue record, i.e. jamabandis, it was not recorded that the land in question was used for common purposes of the village, therefore, the land in dispute is not covered by clause (3) of Section 2 (g) of the Act, hence it should not have been declared to be shamilat deh vesting in the Gram Panchayat. Secondly, learned counsel, while referring to clause (5) of Section 2 (g) of the Act, argued that the land in question does not fall under the said clause, therefore, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Both the aforesaid contentions, raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, are without any force. Secondly, learned counsel, while referring to clause (5) of Section 2 (g) of the Act, argued that the land in question does not fall under the said clause, therefore, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Both the aforesaid contentions, raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, are without any force. Even if it is taken that the land in question is shamilat deh belonging to Patti or has been recorded as Banjar Qadim in the revenue record, even then the same falls under the definition of `shamilat deh', because in the `Sharat Wazib-Ul-Arz' of 1938-39, it has been clearly recorded that this land is reserved for the charagah (a common purpose of the village) and will not to be divided among the proprietors. According to clause (3) of section 2 (g) of the Act, such land falls under the definition of `shamilat deh' and thus vests in the Gram Panchayat. Faced with this situation, learned counsel argued that `Sharat Wazib-Ul-Arz' cannot be termed as a revenue record. This contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted, because it is well settled that `Sharat Wazib-Ul-Arz' is very much part of the revenue record. In this regard, reference can be made to Raja Rajinder Chand v. Mst. Sukhi and others, AIR 1957 SC 286 , wherein it has been held that under section 31 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, wajib-ul-arz is a part of the record-of-rights, and entries made therein in accordance with law and the provision of Ch. IV of the Act and the rules thereunder, shall be presumed to be true (vide Section 44). Further, in Jari and others v. Gram Panchayat, Bichhapari, 1979 PLJ 595, it has been held that Sharat Wajib-ul-arz is a part of record of rights and a presumption of truth is attached to it under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and even if the entries in the Wazib-ul-arz are not repeated in the later settlement, its evidentiary value remains the same. While relying upon these observations, this Court in Rattan Singh v. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, 1993 PLJ 667, where the land in dispute was recorded as Banjar Qadim Makbuza Malkan in the Wazib-ul-arz for the year 1909-10, held that the land in dispute was being used by the village community for common purposes i.e. for grazing the cattle. While relying upon these observations, this Court in Rattan Singh v. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, 1993 PLJ 667, where the land in dispute was recorded as Banjar Qadim Makbuza Malkan in the Wazib-ul-arz for the year 1909-10, held that the land in dispute was being used by the village community for common purposes i.e. for grazing the cattle. It was further held that the cattle of the proprietors and the non-proprietors had a right to graze in the land. User of the land for common purposes, though not recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1953-54, yet the entry in the Wazib-ul-arz would continue to show that the land was being used for common purposes of the village unless this entry was later altered. It was also held that it was so done somewhere in the year 1963, but that would not make any difference, the relevant date being January 9, 1954. The land, thus, was held to be falling in the definition of `shamilat deh.' Therefore, examining the instant case from any angle, it appears that the land in question falls under the definition of `shamilat deh', as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Act and according to section 4 of the Act, such land vests in the Gram Panchayat. It is not the case of the petitioner that his case falls under any of the exceptions provided under Section 2 (g) (5) of the Act. The case of the petitioner before the authorities under the Act was that he is owner of the land in dispute, as he had purchased the same from one Loku Ram, who was declared owner of the said land by the civil court. But instead of producing the sale deed in his favour and the alleged decree in favour of his vendor, the petitioner in his statement before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade stated that he did not know as to from whom he had purchased the land in dispute or whether he was in possession of shamilat deh or not. It has also come in evidence that the petitioner has started cultivating the disputed land after the alleged purchase. Such possession of the petitioner was clearly illegal and unauthorised and he was rightly ordered to be evicted from the land in question. It has also come in evidence that the petitioner has started cultivating the disputed land after the alleged purchase. Such possession of the petitioner was clearly illegal and unauthorised and he was rightly ordered to be evicted from the land in question. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, passed by the authorities under the Act. Dismissed. Since the petitioner has illegally and unauthorisedly remained in occupation of the disputed land and used the same for a long time without any right, title and interest, therefore, in our view, he is liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the land at the rate of ` 5,000/- per hectare per annum from the date of his illegal possession over the disputed land till delivery of its possession. Ordered accordingly.