JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- Petitioners have laid challenge to an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissing their title suit filed under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1962 (in short ‘the Act’). They have also challenged order dated 26.08.2009 (Annexure P-9) dismissing their appeal. Further challenge has been laid to an order dated 25.08.2010 vide which, their revision petition was dismissed. 2. Petitioners have filed above said suit in a representative capacity stating that they, alongwith others, are the right holders in vast track of land which was shown in the revenue record under the ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Hissa Mandarja Paimana Hakiyat. It was their case that the above said land was not reserved for any common purpose and is in cultivating possession of the right holders. 3. To note down their exact claim, it is necessary to reproduce para nos. 3 to 5 of the application filed by them under Section 13-A of the Act which read as under:- “3. That the suit land is recorded as Shamlat land in village Nada. A settlement took place in the village. A separate khewat was carved out which was kept as Shamlat deh and separate khewat was carved out which was kept as Shamlat deh and was record in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh Hasab Mandarza Paimana Hakiat.” This entry was incorporated in the revenue records in the column of ownership. In the column of cultivation, the land recorded as shamlat deh remained in the cultivation possession of the proprietors as per their share. It is further submitted that the said khewat was assessed to the land revenue and individual proprietors were regularly paying land revenue as per the land in their possession. The revenue entries are clearly showing the possession of the proprietors since then to till date without payment of any rent except the land revenue as stated above. Thus the land which was/is recorded as Shamlat Deh and was assessed to land revenue has been in the individual cultivation possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh since more than 50 years before 26-01-1950. 4. That thus from the revenue record, it is clear that the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs and other proprietors are in cultivating possession of the land in question for more than 12 years prior to 26-01-1950. 4. That thus from the revenue record, it is clear that the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs and other proprietors are in cultivating possession of the land in question for more than 12 years prior to 26-01-1950. Therefore, by virtue of section 4(3), (ii) of the Act their rights are protected. Further as per exception clause of section 2(g)(viii) of the Act same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 5. That the aforesaid land after consolidation, remained in possession of the proprietors and the same was not reserved for any common purposes under the Scheme prepared and notified under the provision of East Punjab Consolidation of Holding (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The land in question was never used for any common purposes of the village, therefore, the land in dispute is a Bachat Land and the Gram Panchayat has no right title or interest in the suit property. Thus the management or the control of the land in question never came under defendant the land vest in Gram Panchayat of village Nada per section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961.” 4. It is specifically stated that land do not vest in the Gram Panchayat in view of provision of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act and also in terms of Exception Clause (viii) of Section 2(g) of the Act. 5. The case was contested by the Gram Panchayat. It was specifically stated in the reply that the land in dispute is not under cultivation and in the revenue record, it was shown in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and shown under Gair Mumkin Nadi, Choe, Banjar Qadim etc. Large number of documents were produced at the time when evidence of both the parties was recorded. The Collector, vide order dated 10.02.2009, after discussing evidence on record, came to a conclusion that none of the petitioners have proved that they were in individual cultivating possession of the land in dispute 12 years prior to the commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, as is mandatory as per the provisions of that Act. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “I have heard the arguments carefully addressed by Learned counsel of both the parties and also pursued the relevant record on the file. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “I have heard the arguments carefully addressed by Learned counsel of both the parties and also pursued the relevant record on the file. The evidence produced from the side of plaintiffs, PW.1, Prem Chand has admitted in cross examination that the land is Shamilat deh of which this case has filed again said that it is Shamlat deh malkan. He also admitted that the disputed land has not acquired. At the time of cross examination again said that the all area of disputed land is mentioned on Shamilat deh. PW2 Sarban Singh, said in his cross examination that he could not told the khewat/killa no. of disputed land orally, numbers are written in jamabandi. He admits it correct that the disputed land has been shown shamilat deh in the revenue Jamabandi. He also said that the disputed land’s any landrevenue payment receipts are not with him and it is incorrect that we are paying any land revenue. He also said it that from our forefather in the 1948 as per law no land was deducted. He also stated that it is incorrect that the disputed land due to the reason not deducted and there is no need for use of common purpose. PW3 Govind Singh also admitted in cross examination that disputed land is mention as Shamilat deh. This witness also admitted that the receipts of payment of land revenue is not with him. He also said that their land was deducted before consolidation. Further in cross examination he also said that I do not know that when and how much land was deducted from our land. PW4 Diwan Chand and PW5 Hari Singh, PW6 Amar Singh, PW7 Baldev Singh and PW8 Kartar Singh said in cross examination that I do not know that on 9th January 1954 the Shamlat law passed or not. I also do not know that after 9th January 1954 any rent or lagan given or not. In this way any of witness not proved these issues although himself admitted that the disputed land is shamlat deh. The revenue record produced by the plaintiffs Jamabandi year 1999- 2000 Ex. P1, Jamabandi 1930-31, Ex. P37 and its Hindi translation Ex.P38, Jamabandi 1938-39, Ex. P39 and its Hindi Translation Ex. P40, Jamabandi 1946-47, Ex. P41 and its Hindi translation Ex. P42, and Jamabandi year 1979-80. Ex. The revenue record produced by the plaintiffs Jamabandi year 1999- 2000 Ex. P1, Jamabandi 1930-31, Ex. P37 and its Hindi translation Ex.P38, Jamabandi 1938-39, Ex. P39 and its Hindi Translation Ex. P40, Jamabandi 1946-47, Ex. P41 and its Hindi translation Ex. P42, and Jamabandi year 1979-80. Ex. P53 the disputed land is mentioned as Shamlat deh in the column of ownership of revenue record no difference comes in ownership by written shamlat deh Hasab Hissa Mudarja Paimana Haquiet. Because as per the extended sub Section 6 of Section 2(g) of the above Act in the column of ownership of revenue record meaning of the entry of Jumla Makan and Mustarka Malkan, Jumla and diggar haqdaran Arazi Hasab, Rasad is Shamlat deh U/s 2 (g). In this case by the plaintiffs no such record has been produced, from that it proved that dispupted land was made Shamilat deh while adopting pro-rata-cut from the khewat of ownership of their and other co-sharers of village at the time of consolidation and this land is not reserved for the use of common purpose of this village. Except this the plaintiffs have not proved it that they were in cultivation possession over the disputed land without any paying any rent before 12 years of the commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands Act 1953, on 09-01-1954 and also not proved that as per the provisions of exception clause (viii) of Section 2(g) of Punjab Village Common Land Act 1961 their personal cultivation possession was on the more of their share on 26 January 1950 or before it and paying the land revenue as per the calculation of the disputed land. In my opinion that disputed land comes under the definition of Shamlat deh U/s 2(a)(i) and Section 4(a) as it entered in the revenue record as Shamlat deh before the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Land Act 1953 and consolidation Act 1948.” 6. Suit was dismissed. Petitioners went in appeal, which was also dismissed by the Commissioner on 26.08.2009. Their revision petition was also dismissed on 05.10.2010. Hence this writ petition. 7. It is vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioners that the authorities below, when rejecting their claim, failed to look into the revenue record, which was placed on record by them. Suit was dismissed. Petitioners went in appeal, which was also dismissed by the Commissioner on 26.08.2009. Their revision petition was also dismissed on 05.10.2010. Hence this writ petition. 7. It is vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioners that the authorities below, when rejecting their claim, failed to look into the revenue record, which was placed on record by them. To say that land was in cultivating possession of the right holders, reliance has been placed upon documents Annexures P-12 to P-14 i.e. copies of the Jamabandis for the years 1930-31, 1938- 39 and 1946-47. Reliance was also placed upon copy of mutation entry (Annexure P-11) vide which, land was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat from that of Shamilat deh, as referred to above. It is case of the petitioners that without looking into the revenue record, finding against them has been recorded. 8. To the contrary, it was argued by counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat that the land falls in rivulets, ponds and is Gair Mumkin and is not in cultivating possession of the right holders, as alleged. 9. To look into grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Exception (viii) Section 2(g) of the Act, which reads thus:- “(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.” 10. Provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act is reproduced as under:- “(ii) rights of persons who were in cultivating possession of shamilat deh on the date of the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 or the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954, and were in such cultivating possession for more than twelve years on such commencement without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon.” 11. Under Section 2(g), it is specifically provided that if the land is shown as Shamilat Deh in the revenue record, it will vest in the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, exceptions were carved out to show the circumstances under which land would not fall within the definition of Shamilat Deh land. Under Section 2(g), it is specifically provided that if the land is shown as Shamilat Deh in the revenue record, it will vest in the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, exceptions were carved out to show the circumstances under which land would not fall within the definition of Shamilat Deh land. Under sub clause (viii) of Section 2(g), it is specifically stated that if the land has been in individual cultivating possession of a co-sharer before 26.02.1950 and not more than his share in the Shamilat Deh land, it will not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Similarly in Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act, it is stated that the rights of those right holders will not be affected by the Shamilat Law, who were in cultivating possession of the Shamilat Deh land on the date of commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 i.e. 06.04.1953. It is further stated that a right holder is supposed to be in cultivating possession for more than 12 years on the above said date without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue. 12. We have gone through the documents placed on record. Perusal of Jamabandi for the year 1930-31 makes it very clear that the land was entered as Shamlat Deh Hadsab Hissa Mandarja Paimana Hakiyat and in column of occupation, it is mentioned as Makbuja Malkaan. No part of the land was shown in possession of any individual right holder. Entry appears to be very innocuous because at that time Gram Panchayat was not in existence. So naturally, the land was to be shown in somebody’s possession and accordingly, it was shown in possession of Makbuja Malkaan. Further perusal of the document makes it very clear that land is Banjar Qadim and most of the land is in the nature of Johar (pond), nadi which is shown to be flowing at the spot (Jari) Tibba etc. When the nature of land is shown as Banjar Qadim, it obviously means that it is not under cultivation. We have also seen jamabandi for the year 1946-47 which is relevant for decision of this case. Position remains the same. No piece of land of any right holder was shown in cultivating possession. Land is shown as Gair Mumkin, ponds, rivulets etc. We have also seen jamabandi for the year 1946-47 which is relevant for decision of this case. Position remains the same. No piece of land of any right holder was shown in cultivating possession. Land is shown as Gair Mumkin, ponds, rivulets etc. Grievance of the petitioners that the documents were not considered by the authorities below, in view of findings recorded above, has no legs to stand. Once the petitioners have failed to show that they were in cultivating possession of the land in dispute, as alleged by them in their application under Section 13-A of the Act, no relief can be granted to them. 13. In view of the above facts, no case is made out for interference. Writ petition is dismissed. Specific directions are issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula to make all out efforts to preserve the Shamilat Deh land so that, in future, it may not fall in the hands of some land grabbers. For that purpose, concerned Municipal Commissioner be deputed to take action as per law. --------0.B.S.0------------