JUDGMENT : Jasbir Singh, J. This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP No. 9410 and 14437 both of the year 1993, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. To dictate order, facts are being taken from CWP No. 9410 of 1993. 2. Vide order dated 4.9.1989 (P-3), the petitioner's application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), claiming title in the land measuring 45 kanals and 17 marlas, was dismissed by the Collector. He went in appeal, which was also dismissed on 19.8.1992 (P-4). The petitioner has impugned the above said orders in this writ petition. 3. It is vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioner that orders under challenge are contrary to the revenue record. It is stated that before 1950, the land in dispute was Banjar Kadim and there is nothing on record to show that it was used for common purposes, as such in terms of the provisions of Section 2 (g) (5) of the Act, it shall not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 4. Further it has been asserted that case of the petitioner would fall under Exception No. (viii) of Section 2 (g) of the Act. It is stated that the petitioner was in cultivating possession before 26.1.1950 and the land was not in excess of his share in the total Shamlat Deh land of the village. 5. Counsel for the respondents has supported orders under challenge. It is stated that to prove above said contentions, the petitioner has failed to bring on record any documents. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties. 7. Perusal of the orders under challenge makes it very clear that whatever documents were produced before the Collector, those were taken note of and it was specifically observed that there is nothing on record to show that the land in dispute was Banjar Kadim on the date when the Act was commenced i.e. on 4.5.1961. 8. It is further noticed that the petitioner has also failed to prove that he was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute before 26.1.1950. It is not in dispute that land was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1956. That mutation order was never challenged by the petitioner or anybody else. It still subsists. 9. It is not in dispute that land was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1956. That mutation order was never challenged by the petitioner or anybody else. It still subsists. 9. The provision of sub section (5) of Section 2 (g) of the Act reads thus :- "2 (g) "Shamlat deh" includes - (1) to (4) xxx xxx (5) lands in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village according to revenue records; Exception 8 to Section 2(g) of the Act reads thus- "but does not include land which :- (i) to (vii) xxx xxx xxx xxx (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. At the time of arguments, we specifically asked the petitioner to show any document indicating nature of the land in dispute before commencement of the Act, however, he failed to do so. 11. On perusal of record, we came to a conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that the land in dispute was Banjar Kadim, when the above said Act was enforced. 12. Furthermore, to prove that land in dispute was in cultivating possession of the petitioner on or before 26.1.1950, no document has been placed on record. The petitioner has so stated, which the respondent Gram Panchayat has not controverted in the reply. Be that as it may, once finding has come qua a fact, it was duty of the petitioner to place on record the documents to rebut the same. Before the Appellate Authority, it was specific case of the petitioner that he was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute before 26.1.1950, as such, he has become its owner. 13. The Appellate Authority made reference to the documents on record, in the following manner :- "The appellant has challenged the order on the plea that the evidence produced by him have not been appreciated. It has been pointed out that the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat according to Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Ex. A-1 and was in possession of the right holders of the village. It has been pointed out that the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat according to Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Ex. A-1 and was in possession of the right holders of the village. After consolidation also this land was converted into new number Khasras as is clear from the Khatauni Ishtemal Ex.A-2 and number Khasra has been in possession of the right holders of the village. According to Khatauni Ishtemal as well as subsequent Jamabandi for the year 2008- 09 Ex.A-6. The mutation dated 7.5.1956 converting Panchayat land does not confer title on Panchayat to exclude the right holders of the village." 14. It was specifically noted that the documents put on record were specifically noticed and thereafter, it was stated that name of the petitioner does not figure in Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 BK, which was brought on record as Ex. A-1. 15. By making reference to that fact, it was stated that the petitioner has failed to show his cultivating possession in the land in dispute before 1950. 16. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that land in possession of the petitioner, was not in excess to his share in the total Shamlat Deh Khewat. Not only as above, there is nothing on record to show that land was Banjar Kadim at the time of enforcement of the Act. 17. To say that the petitioner has become owner of the land in dispute, reliance has only been placed on documents Annexures P-5 to P-8 i.e. copies of the Jamabandis for the year 1969-70, 1974-75, 1979-80 and 1984-85, however, these documents do not favour case of the petitioner. Relevant documents have not been placed on record, on the basis of which any relief could have been granted to the petitioner. 18. Furthermore, pure finding of fact has been given by the Collector that before 1962 the land in dispute was given on lease by the Gram Panchayat. 19. In view of above, no case is made out for interference in the impugned orders. Dismissed.