JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral): - Appellants, by filing this appeal, has laid challenge to an order dated 9.8.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 2123 of 2009, filed by the appellants. That writ petition was filed to lay challenge to an order dated 29.3.2007, passed by the Collector, Sonepat declaring Gram Panchayat-respondent No.4 as owner of the land in dispute. Further challenge was laid to orders dated 5.9.2008 and 10.12.2008, vide which appeal and revision petitioner etc., filed by the appellants, were dismissed. As per revenue record, land was described under the ownership of Shamlat Panna Kalian Bai Hissa Jaildar 80 shares. As per evidence on record, when judgment was passed on 18.1.1995 by Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh & Others v. State of Haryana and mutation was changed in the name of right holders. That judgment was upset by the Supreme Court and the case was remitted to this High Court for further decision, however, mutation was not re-entered in the name of above Panna, as shown above. Jai Singh’s case (supra), was again decided on 13.3.2003, by a Full Bench reported in 2003(1) Punjab Law Journal 429. Thereafter, Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 13A of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) claiming title in the land in dispute measuring 501 kanals 4 marlas. That application, after contest, was allowed in favour of Gram Panchayat on 29.3.2007. The Collector has discussed the detailed evidence on record and by making reference to the provisions of Sharat Wajib-Ul-Arz (Annexure P1) and copies of jamabandis on record, it was said that the land was reserved for charand (grazing ground for the animals). In that order, issue No.1 was decided in the following terms:- “ISSUE NO.1 Whether the suit land is in ownership and possession of Panchayat Deh and the ownership thereof is wrongly continued in favour of Shamilat Panna Kalian. The onus to prove this issue was upon the shoulders of the plaintiff. In its evidence copy of Sharat-Wajib-Ul-Arz produced as Ex.P1, copy of jamabandi for the year 1956-57 Ex.P2, copy of consolidation scheme Ex.P3, copy of istemal Ex.P4, copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 Ex.P5, copy of mutation No. 1793 Ex.P6, copy of resolution Ex.P7, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.P8, and copy of jamabandi pertaining to the year 1995-96 Ex.P9. In its evidence copy of Sharat-Wajib-Ul-Arz produced as Ex.P1, copy of jamabandi for the year 1956-57 Ex.P2, copy of consolidation scheme Ex.P3, copy of istemal Ex.P4, copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 Ex.P5, copy of mutation No. 1793 Ex.P6, copy of resolution Ex.P7, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.P8, and copy of jamabandi pertaining to the year 1995-96 Ex.P9. As per condition No.1 the copy of Sharat- Wajib-Ul-Arz, the area of Shamilat Panna Murad and Panna Kalia has been kept reserved as charand. In condition No.2, thereof, it has been mentioned that the cattle of the proprietors of the village can graze therein as Pannawar. The cattle of proprietors of one Panna has no right to graze them in the land of other Panna without their prior permission. If with the consent of the other Panna, the cattle are grazing then the fees for grazing shall not be charged from them, besides the cattle of this village neither go for grazing to the other village nor the cattle of other village come to this village for grazing. The cattle of non proprietors without paying any fees are grazing in the land. No grazing fees is being charged from them. Likewise in Clause No.13 of the consolidation scheme it is clearly mentioned that the more area for the purpose of charand is already existing and falls in two Pannas. This area Ba Dastur in its form and shape will be kept intact in Killa numbers. In the jamabandi for the year 1956-57, the nature of the land has been recorded as Banjar Kadim Charagah. In the judgment of Jai Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2003 (1)P.L.R. Page 429 it has been held that the mutation which has been sanctioned on the basis of amended Act No. 9 of 1992, shall be cancelled. But if the land under consolidation scheme has been kept reserved for the common purpose and the proprietors are in illegal possession thereof, then the Panchayat as per the provisions contained in Section 13-A of the P.V.C.L. Act is independent to file the suit against the proprietors. But if the land under consolidation scheme has been kept reserved for the common purpose and the proprietors are in illegal possession thereof, then the Panchayat as per the provisions contained in Section 13-A of the P.V.C.L. Act is independent to file the suit against the proprietors. It is further held therein that as per Section 2(g)(i) if all such lands have been shown to be reserved for the common purpose under the consolidation scheme whether those lands used or not for the said purpose, shall vest in the Gram Panchayat as to whether in the column of ownership those lands are recorded as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa Digar Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. The land in dispute as per the copy of Sharat-Wajib-Ul-Arz has been kept reserved for the purpose of charand and in the consolidation scheme, it shall be kept intact for the said purpose and in the jamabandi also it has been recorded as Banjar Kadim Charand which is common purpose. Therefore, as per Section 2(g)(i) and (iii) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act such type of land comes under the definition of shamilat deh and vests in the panchayat. The khasra numbers depicted in the copy of Sharat-Wajib-Ul-Arz out of that most of the khasra numbers are tallied with the khasra numbers defined in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1956- 57. Besides the rulings relied upon by the respondents are not applicable in the present case and the mutation No. 1793 has been wrongly accepted in favour of the respondents. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff Gram Panchayat and against the respondents.” 2. Appellants failed in appeal and revision. Before the learned Single Judge, it was said that the land was under cultivation and in possession of the right holders. It was further argued that reliance was wrongly placed upon the provisions of Wajib-Ul-Arz by the authorities below to say that the land was reserved for charand. The learned Single Judge looked into the provisions of the consolidation scheme wherein it was mentioned that the land of Pannas be kept reserved for charand. Further reference was made to the provisions of Wajib-Ul-Arz to say that the land was so reserved for Charand in the said document. The learned Single Judge looked into the provisions of the consolidation scheme wherein it was mentioned that the land of Pannas be kept reserved for charand. Further reference was made to the provisions of Wajib-Ul-Arz to say that the land was so reserved for Charand in the said document. By making reference to various judgments on the subject, it is a opined that even if conditions of Wajib-Ul-Arz were not shown in the consolidation scheme, those can be relied upon as per the provisions of Section 44 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. It was further said that mutation was wrongly entered in the name of right holders in view of Jai Singh’s case (supra). However, when the said decision was upset by the Supreme Court, the authorities below were under an obligation to re-enter the mutation in the name of Gram Panchayat. It was not so done. Before the authorities below, it was contention of counsel for the appellants that the land was partitioned before 26.1.1950 and they were in cultivating possession. There is no proof of the same on record. 3. We are satisfied that the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, is perfectly justified. Counsel for the appellants has failed to show any illegality in that order. 4. Dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------