JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.: - This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.5407, 7233 and 10660 of 1998 as common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions. However, for the sake of convenience, reference is being made to the pleadings in Civil Writ Petition No.7233 of 1998-Iqbal Singh Vs. The Joint Development Commissioner (I.R.D.) and others. 2. The petitioner-Iqbal Singh now represented through his legal representatives are aggrieved against order dated 12.8.1997 (Annexure P-6) wherein his petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act”) for declaration as owner of the land measuring 42 Kanals 13 Marlas detail of which was mentioned in the heading of the petition was dismissed by the Collector, Kapurthala. The said order was upheld in appeal on 16.4.1998 (Annexure P-8) by the Appellate Authority. 3. In the connected writ petition No.5407 of 1998 filed by Iqbal Singh, challenge is to the ejectment application allowed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act on 1.9.1997(Annexure P-4) on the ground of being unauthorised occupant and assessment of Rs. 1,21,000/- being 20 times of the lease money at the rate of Rs. 6050/- since 5.6.1986 and further compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,63,000/- for illegal cultivation of the land for the last 3 years. The appellate order was passed on 16.4.1998 wherein by a composite order of even date, the appeal was dismissed under Section 11 of the 1961 Act as noticed above, however, the amount of compensation was reduced to half. 4. In Civil Writ Petition No.10660 of 1998, the Gram Panchayat, Talwara is aggrieved against the order dated 28.1.1997 (Annexure P-3) whereby the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab held that the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat regarding the land in dispute was wrong and directed that the partition be effected by the Consolidation Officer and protected the possession of the persons in possession. 5. The case has a chequered history of litigation since Iqbal Singh firstly filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act for claiming title which was accepted by the Collector on 27.2.1989. However, the said order was set aside on appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat on 9.6.1992 and the matter was remanded back to the Collector. 5. The case has a chequered history of litigation since Iqbal Singh firstly filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act for claiming title which was accepted by the Collector on 27.2.1989. However, the said order was set aside on appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat on 9.6.1992 and the matter was remanded back to the Collector. Iqbal Singh also filed Civil Suit No.75 on 18.2.1995 for permanent injunction on account of order passed under Section 150 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as “the Revenue Act”) by the Deputy Commissioner. However, he was dispossessed on 30.3.1995 during the pendency of the civil suit. The said civil suit was decreed in his favour on 5.2.1996. In view of the fact that the possession had been taken during the pendency of the civil suit for permanent injunction, the possession was also restored. The Gram Panchayat was not successful in getting the decree set aside in appeal. In the meantime, Iqbal Singh had also filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Consolidation Act”) against the Gram Panchayat and others on the ground that there were Muslims and Hindus proprietors and the land was joint and after the migration of Muslims to Pakistan, the land remained in possession of Hindu proprietors. An exparte order was passed on 28.1.1997 by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, who directed the Consolidation Officer to partition the land by separating the shares and protected the possession of the persons in possession and declared mutation No.797 in favour of the Gram Panchayat having no effect on the right holders. The operative part of the order reads as under:- “I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. I find that there is a force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. As per Jamabandi, for the year 2008-2009 BK, the land is described as Shamlat deh hasab rasad khewat, but vide mutation no.797, the same has been transferred by the consolidation authorities in favour of the Nagar Sabha, Halqa Talwara. I find that there is a force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. As per Jamabandi, for the year 2008-2009 BK, the land is described as Shamlat deh hasab rasad khewat, but vide mutation no.797, the same has been transferred by the consolidation authorities in favour of the Nagar Sabha, Halqa Talwara. It is a settled law that the land, which has been transferred on the basis of mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of a Government letter does not vest in the gram panchayat, because, such a mutation does not have any effect on the right holders in respect of the land, in dispute. The land aforesaid and which is described as Shamlat deh hasab rasad khewat vests in the proprietary body of the village and they want to get it partitioned. It should have been partitioned by the consolidation authorities during consolidation process, but, it has not been done, which mistake can be rectified by doing the needful. Accordingly, mutation no.797 is ignored, petition is accepted and the scheme is amended to the extent that the shares of the petitioners in khewat no.345 and 99, which is entered in the ownership column in the name of gram panchayat and in the cultivation column, maqbooja malkan is entered, be separated according to their respective shares in the village, as they existed at the time of consolidation. The case is remanded to the consolidation officer (Tehsildar), Bholath, District Kapurthala for doing the needful. The Consolidation Officer shall proceed to separate the shares after summoning and hearing the petitioners and all other interested parties. It is further made clear that the C.O. will not separate any or partition any land, which is required for common purposes in terms of the provisions of consolidation act and Rules made thereunder. It is further directed that no person in possession of any parcel of land, in dispute, in khewat no.345 and 99 shall be evicted except in due course of law.” 6. The petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act was, however, dismissed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer exercising the powers of Collector after noting that Iqbal Singh was tenant and the land mentioned in the head note was of ownership of the Nagar Panchayat and vests in it as per Jamabandi for the year 1984-85. The petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act was, however, dismissed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer exercising the powers of Collector after noting that Iqbal Singh was tenant and the land mentioned in the head note was of ownership of the Nagar Panchayat and vests in it as per Jamabandi for the year 1984-85. Reliance was also placed upon the lease deed bearing signature of Iqbal Singh and his statement made in Civil Suit No.177 dated 12.6.1985 which he had filed against the Gram Panchayat which was decided on 26.9.1985 by the Court of Sh. G.S.Malwai, Sub Judge IInd Class, Kapurthala. The relevant portion of the order dated 12.8.1997 (Annexure P-6) reads as under:- “After hearing the ld. Counsel for both the parties, the record brought on the file was carefully perused. In the column of ownership of Jamabandi for the year 1984-85, the entry of the land mentioned in the head note is Nagar Panchayat and in the column of cultivation the entry is Iqbal Singh petitioner Gair Maroosi. In the Khasra girdawari for the year 1985 to 88-89, the entries in the columns of ownership are Nagar Panchayat and in the columns of cultivation, Iqbal Singh Gair Maroosi is mentioned. In the column of ownership of Jamabandi for the year 1989-90, the entry of the land mentioned in the head note is Panchayat deh and in the column of cultivation, the entries Iqbal Singh (petitioner) Gair Maroosi. Photo copies of lease deeds Exh D-1, D-4, D-5 and D-6 bear the signatures of Iqbal singh petitioner. The back sides of the receipts Ex. D-7, D-8 and D-9 issued by the Panchayat to Iqbal Singh on his deposit of the lease money bear the signatures of Iqbal Singh. From this it is proved that this land is shamlat deh and the petitioner took this land on lease from the year 1980 to 1989 and continued to pay the lease money to the Panchayat. In his statement in civil suit No.177 dated 12.6.1985 Iqbal Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat, Talwara decided on 26.9.1985 by Court of Shri G.S. Malwai, PCS, Sub Judge IInd Class, Kapurthala, Iqbal Singh has stated that the land in dispute is the ownership of the Panchayat and he has taken this land on lease. In his statement in civil suit No.177 dated 12.6.1985 Iqbal Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat, Talwara decided on 26.9.1985 by Court of Shri G.S. Malwai, PCS, Sub Judge IInd Class, Kapurthala, Iqbal Singh has stated that the land in dispute is the ownership of the Panchayat and he has taken this land on lease. From all these documents it is proved that the land mentioned in the head note is ownership of Nagar Panchayat and vests in the Panchayat. The petitioner has been continuously taking this land on lease from the year 1980 to 1989 and has been paying the lease money to the Panchayat. I, Charan Dass, D.D.P.O. Kapurthala while exercising the powers of Collector Lands under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 declare that the land mentioned in the head note is ownership of the Nagar Panchayat and dismiss the petition of the petitioner. File be consigned to record after due compliance. The order has been pronounced in the court in the presence of both the parties. Kapurthala 12.8.1997 Sd/ Charan Dass Collector, Panchayat Lands Kapurthala 12.8.1997.” 7. On appeal the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.4.1998 on the ground that Iqbal Singh was in forcible occupation of the land and was not even resident of village Talwara but a resident of village Santpur. Being lessee he had no right to raise claim of ownership as he was not even Khewatdar of the village and only was a lessee. The order of the Director, Consolidation whereby partition had been ordered in favour of the right holders on the application of Iqbal Singh was rejected in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpur Vs. State of Punjab and others 1997(1) PLJ 268. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- “Both the parties were carefully heard and the record of the case was also carefully perused. As per jamabandi 1989-90 this land is ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The appellant has taken this land on lease for the year 1982-83 for Rs.2250/- and 1983-84 for Rs.2300/- but thereafter he has been forcibly occupying the land and got this land mutated in his name in collusion with the revenue authorities. The appellant is resident of Gram Panchayat, Santpur. He is not resident of village Talwara when this land is situated in village Talwara. The appellant is resident of Gram Panchayat, Santpur. He is not resident of village Talwara when this land is situated in village Talwara. Being Khewatdar he cannot raise any claim over this land because he is not Khewatdar of village Talwara. Once a person become lessee, he remains lessee of the Gram Panchayat till the time he surrenders possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat. The ld. counsel for the appellant has given more stress on the fact that the Director Consolidation has ordered the partition of this land. This order of partition does not have any affect on the rights of the Gram Panchayat because Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported in 1997 (1) PLJ 268 has clearly directed that the Director Consolidation has no authority to partition shamlat land. If there is any dispute regarding the ownership of shamlat land, the same has to be decided by the Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Therefore, no credence can be given to the order of the Director, Consolidation and nor it has any affect upon the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed.” 8. In the meantime, petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act seeking ejectment filed by the Gram Panchayat had already been allowed on 1.9.1997(Annexure P-4) keeping in view the decision of Section 11 petition passed on 12.8.1997. The relevant portion of the order reads under:- “After hearing the arguments of both the parties and record brought on file was perused in depth. In the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90, the land mentioned in the headnote is shamlat deh and in the column of cultivation name of respondent Iqbal Singh s/o Bakhshish Singh is mentioned. In the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, the land described in the headnote is shamlat deh and in the column of cultivation the entry is self cultivation. Respondent has been taking his land on lease from Panchayat since the year 1980-81 to 1988-89. The lease register photo copies of which have been produced by petitioner, bears the signatures of respondent in Urdu on 26.9.1995. The respondent has given his statement in the court of Sh. D.S. Malwai, P.C.S., Sub Judge, Kapurthala that the land in dispute is the ownership of Gram Panchayat and he has taken this land on lease from Gram Panchayat. The lease register photo copies of which have been produced by petitioner, bears the signatures of respondent in Urdu on 26.9.1995. The respondent has given his statement in the court of Sh. D.S. Malwai, P.C.S., Sub Judge, Kapurthala that the land in dispute is the ownership of Gram Panchayat and he has taken this land on lease from Gram Panchayat. Receipts of payment of lease money by the respondent bears his signatures on their back side. The respondent has filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 in this court and same was dismissed on 12.8.97. Against that order, the respondent has filed appeal in the Court of Director, Panchayat. From the revenue record, it is proved that this land mentioned in the headnote is shamlat deh and this land vests in Panchayat. Respondent has been taking this land on lease. Last time he took the land mentioned in headnote on lease on 5.6.86 for the year 1986-87 @ Rs.6060/- and he has made payments of lease money at the rate to Panchayat. Thereafter, litigation started between petitioner and respondent and petitioner did not make payment of lease money. I Charan Dass, District Development and Panchayat Officer exercising the powers of Collector Panchayat Lands while exercising powers under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 declare the respondent unauthorised occupants over the land mentioned in the head note and order the ejectment of respondent from the land mentioned in the head note. While exercising the powers under Rule 20-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1984 I assess Rs.1,21,000/- being 20 times of lease money per year @ Rs. 6050/- since 5.6.1986 and further assess compensation of Rs. 3,63,000/- for illegal cultivation of the land for the last 3 years. File be consigned to record room. Order was pronounced in the presence of both the parties and their counsel.” 9. In appeal decided on 16.4.1998 along with appeal filed against the title suit, the compensation was reduced to half by the Appellate Authority. 3,63,000/- for illegal cultivation of the land for the last 3 years. File be consigned to record room. Order was pronounced in the presence of both the parties and their counsel.” 9. In appeal decided on 16.4.1998 along with appeal filed against the title suit, the compensation was reduced to half by the Appellate Authority. Resultantly, the present writ petition was filed challenging the denial of title along with writ petition bearing No.5407 of 1998 challenging the ejectment under Section 7 of the 1961 Act whereas Gram Panchayat on the other hand filed writ petition bearing no.10660 of 1998 challenging the order passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab partitioning the land. 10. Initially this Court while disposing of the said cases on 27.10.1999 dismissed the writ petitions filed by Iqbal Singh holding that since it was a conceded position that Iqbal Singh was a lessee, there was no merit in the case whereas writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed. The matter was remanded back by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 1.12.2004 to decide the same on merits afresh after taking into consideration the respective contentions of the parties. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the orders of the authorities below were non speaking and only revenue record from 1980 had been examined and not from 1961. It has further submitted that Jambandi for the year 1951-52 was not taken into consideration to show the possession of the petitioner and land was not reserved for common purposes. Reliance has been placed upon the civil suit in which possession had been restored to Iqbal Singh. Reliance has also been placed upon the order of the Director, Consolidation to submit that the partition had been ordered and that the petitioner was owner. 12. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was never in possession of the land in dispute before 26.1.1950 and petitioner was neither a voter nor resident of village Talwara. He had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat for the first time in the year 1981-82 and remained as lessee till 1989-90 and, therefore, had no right to challenge the title of the Gram Panchayat without delivery of possession. 13. He had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat for the first time in the year 1981-82 and remained as lessee till 1989-90 and, therefore, had no right to challenge the title of the Gram Panchayat without delivery of possession. 13. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petitions filed by Iqbal Singh have no merit and are liable to be dismissed whereas the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat is liable to be allowed for the following reasons:- 14. That the Apex Court in Gram Panchayat, Nurpur’s case (supra) had categorically held that the jurisdiction regarding the ownership of Shamlat land is to be decided under the 1961 Act and the Director, Consolidation has no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute is Shamlat deh or not under the Consolidation Act. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “4. The Additional Director interpreted the entries to mean that the respondents were in continuous possession of the land in dispute from 1944-45 onwards and on that assumption, he came to the conclusion that despite the entry in the column of ownership, the land was not shamlat deh land and as such did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The High Court upheld the finding by dismissing the writ petition in limine. 5. We are of the view that the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute was shamlat deh or not. This is a question which could only be decided by the authorities under the Regulation Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Additional Director, Consolidation and also the order of the High Court and send the matter before the Collector, Kapurthala, for decision in accordance with law under the Regulation Act. We make it clear that the Collector shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law irrespective of the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities in this respect. We direct the Collector to decide the matter within 2 months of the receipt of this order. Appeal accepted.” 15. The said view has subsequently been followed in Gram Panchayat, Sidh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 PLJ 313 pertaining to the Bachat Land. We direct the Collector to decide the matter within 2 months of the receipt of this order. Appeal accepted.” 15. The said view has subsequently been followed in Gram Panchayat, Sidh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 PLJ 313 pertaining to the Bachat Land. Thus, the order dated 28.1.1997 setting aside the mutation in favour of Gram Panchayat and protecting the possession and ordering partition was without jurisdiction and accordingly, the same is quashed. 16. Regarding the question qua title of Iqbal Singh, the case of the petitioner itself before the Collector was that he was in possession since the last 40 years on the ground that the village was inhabited by Musilms and after partition Muslims had migrated to Pakistan and the land in question was property of Muslims and in case it was not proved so, then the same be sold to him on reserve price as he was in occupation. Relevant portion of the pleadings as per the order dated 12.8.1997 (Annexure P-6) reads as under:- “Petitioner has filed the present petition against respondent (Gram Panchayat) u/s 11 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that the land mentioned in the head note in his ownership and is under his possession. He is continuing in possession since last 40 years and after filling the pits in the land he has made it cultivable after spending about 60,000/- from his own pocket. Gram Panchayat and the other persons of the village have knowledge of the continuous possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute and Gram Panchayat has no link with this property and nor Gram Panchayat ever leased the land to the petitioner. Petitioner has made arrangement for watering the land in dispute from his own land and till today neither the Panchayat nor any official of Panchayat Department has taken any objection. Previously the whole village was inhabited by Muslims and after partition of the country all Muslims have migrated and this land was Muslim property. Now, there is no Muslim in the village and after partition of country he is in continuous possession over the land in dispute. At the end the petitioner has prayed that he be declared owner of the land mentioned in the head note u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. Now, there is no Muslim in the village and after partition of country he is in continuous possession over the land in dispute. At the end the petitioner has prayed that he be declared owner of the land mentioned in the head note u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. If for any reasons, it is not proved that he is owner of the land, then the same be sold to him for reserve price.” 17. In pursuance of this, the plea taken by Iqbal Singh in his deposition also was to the same effect as per his statement recorded on 22.12.1989 that the land was owned by the Muslims and now in column of ownership Nagar Panchayat had been written though it was in his possession. Similar plea was also taken by him in the Civil Suit for permanent injunction bearing No.75 filed on 18.2.1995 challenging the order passed under Section 150 of the Revenue Act. The contention of the plaintiff’s counsel in the said suit as noted by the Civil Court reads as under:- “Referring to the Jamabandi for the year 2001 BK Ex.P-9, Jamabandi for the period 2008-09 BK Ex. P-6, Missal Hakiat Ex.P-7 and copy of Khatauni Pamiash Ex. P-8, it was contended by the plaintiff’s counsel that the entire village Talwara where the suit property is situated, was owned by the muslim proprietors and the suit property alongwith other land of the village was standing in their names before consolidation as Shamlat deh hasab rasad Khewat. After their migration to Pakistan, the suit land alongwith other land of village Talwara stood vested on the Govt. as evacuee property. However, after consolidation the suit property has been wrongly entered in the revenue record either in the name of panchayat deh or in the name of Nagar Panchayat, although the Khasra numbers of the property in dispute has been carved out, out of the land standing in the preconsolidation record i.e. jamabandi for the year 2001 BK and 2008-09 Bk as shamlat deh hasab rasad Khewat. This wrong entry in the revenue record in the name of Nagar Sabha or Panchayat deh does not change the nature of the suit property, not it will create any right or ownership in favour of the Gram Panchayat. This wrong entry in the revenue record in the name of Nagar Sabha or Panchayat deh does not change the nature of the suit property, not it will create any right or ownership in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Even if, it has been leased out by the Gram Panchayat at some occasion, the Act of the Gram Panchayat in this regard will not change the nature of the land in dispute.” 18. Keeping in view the said plea, the suit was decreed on the said basis in favour of the petitioner by holding that proceedings under the Revenue Act were not maintainable and suit land was never reserved for the common purpose of co-sharers. It was also noticed that according to the defendant, the plaintiff was put into possession as lessee. The finding recorded by the Civil Court reads as under:- “In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to declare the impugned order dated 28.3.1995 to be illegal, void and Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Kapurthala proceeded against the provisions of the Act. The suit land was never reserved for the common purpose of the co-sharers, nor it was encroached by the plaintiff a co-sharer, and rather according to the defendant, the plaintiff was put into possession of the suit property as lessee. Therefore, in such states of affairs no order could be passed against the plaintiff U/s 150 of the Act and as such the impugned order is totally illegal and void having passed without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the Act.” 19. Once it is the case of the petitioner himself that the land belongs to Muslims then by operation of law, the land becomes evacuee property and stood vested in the Custodian under the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 which was thereafter repealed and replaced by the Central Act, namely, the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Central Act”). By virtue of Section 8(2) of the Central Act any property owned by Muslims was deemed to have been vested in the Custodian appointed for the State under the Central Act. By virtue of Section 8(2) of the Central Act any property owned by Muslims was deemed to have been vested in the Custodian appointed for the State under the Central Act. Accordingly, holdings of the Muslims evacuees in the villages were vested in the Custodian under the Central Act by operation of law and thereafter, the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 came into force by virtue of which under Section 3 the rights of Muslims vested in the Panchayat and thereafter on its repeal, the 1961 Act came into force and as a result of which ownership in the Shamlat Deh to the extent of Muslim proprietors was held to have been extinguished in the hands of all other persons. The same would vest in the Gram Panchayats and on account of its indivisibility and inalienability as it was held by the Apex Court that such land would fall in the character of Shamlat Deh as a matter of agrarian reform in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur Vs. Malwinder Singh 1985 (3) SCC 661 . The relevant observation reads as under:- “8. A mere reading of the two sections, namely, section 3 of the Punjab Act of 1953 and section 8(2) of the Central Act of 1950, would show that there is a direct conflict between the two provisions. Under section 4 of the East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act 14 of 1947, which came into force on December 13, 1947 all interest in the property, movable or immovable, of the evacuees vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Government. The Central Act of 1950 repealed the East Punjab Act 14 of 1947. Under section 8 (2) of the Central Act of 1950, the evacuee property which was vested in the Custodian appointed by the State Government under the repealed Act, was to be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such under the Central Act and became vested in the Custodian appointed under the Central Act. Thereafter came the Punjab Act of 1953 under which, “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force”, all rights, title and interest whatsoever in the Shamlat-deh lands on any village, came to be vested in the Panchayat having jurisdiction over the particular village. Thereafter came the Punjab Act of 1953 under which, “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force”, all rights, title and interest whatsoever in the Shamlat-deh lands on any village, came to be vested in the Panchayat having jurisdiction over the particular village. It is quite clear that as a result of this provision, the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 was divested of the Shamlat- deh lands, to the extent of the interest therein of the Muslim proprietors who had migrated to Pakistan. If the Punjab Legislature had not passed the Act of 1953, the Custodian appointed or deemed to be appointed under the Central Act of 1950 could have dealt with the interest of the Muslim evacuees in the Shamlat-deh lands as evacuee property, though consistently with the limitations which operated upon that interest. He forfeited that power because, the Punjab Act of 1953 extinguished the interests of all persons, whether Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims, in the Shamlat-deh lands and vested all rights, title and interest in such lands in the respective Panchayats having jurisdiction over the village. It may be mentioned that the Punjab Act of 1953 was repealed and replaced by an Act of 1961, bearing a similar title. That Act defines the Shamlatdeh lands in a slightly different manner but, that difference is inconsequential for resolving the controversy which arise before us. xxx xxx xxx 10. The consequences of this repugnancy are self evident. Under the Central Act of 1950, the Custodian is entitled to preserve and manage the interests of evacuees in all evacuee properties, which would include the Shamlatdeh lands. Under the Punjab Act of 1953, the Shamlat-deh lands vest in the Panchayats, which carries with it the right of preservation and management of such Lands. In brief, by reason of the State Act, the Custodian appointed under the Central Act of 1950 is divested of his control over the evacuee interest in the Shamlat-deh lands. The most significant impact of this divestment, though somewhat of an academic nature, is that the Rehabilitation Department of the Central Government loses its power to allot such lands, to the extent of the evacuee interest therein, to displaced persons in order to satisfy their claims under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Such properties, therefore, cannot form part of the Compensation pool. Such properties, therefore, cannot form part of the Compensation pool. Nor can these properties, to the extent of the surplus remaining after allotment to displaced persons, be transferred by the Central Government to the State Government under the ‘Package Deal’ of 1961. We said that the impact of repugnancy is somewhat of an academic nature because, what vests in the Custodian is the interest of the evacuee such as it is, that is to say, together with all the incidents to which the evacuee interest was subject. That interest cannot be freed from its incidents merely because it comes to be vested in the Custodian as evacuee property. The Custodian gets what the evacuee had, quantitatively and qualitatively. If the evacuee’s interest in Shamlat was incapable of alienation and if Shamlat-deh lands were regarded as reserved for the common use of the villagers, the Custodian would have no right to allot them for the separate or exclusive use of displaced persons who migrated to India after the partition of the country. If no allotment could be made by the Custodian under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954, there would be no question of any surplus land, consequently, no occasion to transfer ‘surplus’ land to the State Government under the Package Deal of 1961. The peculiar incidents of the co-sharers’ interest in the Shamlatdeh lands and the severe limitations operating upon that interest render the provisions of the Central Act of 1950 virtually innocuous and inoperative. The Custodian, under that Act, would have the husk of the title to the evacuees’ interest in the Shamlat-deh lands as a result of the vesting of that interest in him but, beyond such vesting, he would be powerless, in practice, to distribute those lands to the displaced persons. The hall-mark of the Shamlat-deh lands is their indivisibility and inalienability, (See Rattigan’s Digest’, to which our learned Brother, Chinnappa Reddy, has made a copious reference).” 20. Once that was so, mutation No.797 on 12.4.1957 was thus rightly effected as per Jamabandi for the years 2008-09 BK and 1951-52 BK and the petitioner had no right in the land in dispute and thus, was rightly held not to be owner by the authorities below. Once that was so, mutation No.797 on 12.4.1957 was thus rightly effected as per Jamabandi for the years 2008-09 BK and 1951-52 BK and the petitioner had no right in the land in dispute and thus, was rightly held not to be owner by the authorities below. As noticed above, the authorities in the impugned order had noticed the fact that Iqbal Singh had taken the land on lease from Gram Panchayat and copy of the lease deed bore the signatures of Iqbal Singh along with receipts. Once Iqbal Singh himself had taken the land on lease, he was precluded from challenging the ownership of the Gram Panchayat in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 without surrendering possession as has been held by Division Bench of this Court in Inder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and others 1987 PLJ 614. The relevant observations read as under:- “The petitioner got into possession of the land, in dispute as a successful bidder in the auction and by virtue of provision of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the status of the Gram Panchayat in regard to its right to possess it and auction it to whomsoever it likes. Since the petitioner had taken the possession of the land from the Gram Panchayat the petitioner had to give back the possession to the Gram Panchayat.” 21. The submission of the counsel that Jamabandi for the year 1951-52 had not been discussed and the land was never reserved for common purpose is without any basis since in view of the pleaded case of the petitioner himself that land never fell in any of the exception clauses as provided under Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act to take it out of the ambit of Shamlat land Thus, in the absence of such pleading and in view of the plea taken by the petitioner himself before the Civil Court and before the authorities below, the authorities rightly declined his claim for the ownership. The orders passed by the authorities are well reasoned and speaking orders and counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any illegality or irregularities in the said orders. The orders passed by the authorities are well reasoned and speaking orders and counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any illegality or irregularities in the said orders. The petitioner has been able to stay in the land in dispute as per his own case for the last more than 40 years and has deprived the Gram Panchayat of the income from the said land, therefore, he has been rightly evicted and the compensation has also been ordered to be paid to the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Section 7 of the 1961 Act. 22. Accordingly, Civil Writ Petitions No.5407 and 7233 of 1998 filed by the petitioners are dismissed and for the reasons noticed above, Civil Writ Petition No.10660 of 1998 filed by the Gram Panchayat, Talwara is allowed and the order 28.1.1997(Annexure P-3) passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab is quashed. ------------------