M.M. Kumar; C.J.— 1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent preferred by inhabitants of Village Chadwal and Satguru Sewa Trust Chadwal, is directed against judgment and order dated 19.12.2012 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the claim made by them for setting aside order dated 08.10.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner Kathua. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner No.1 passed numerous resolutions including the one passed on 22.05.2012 (AA-12), deciding that area within the compound wall of Khasra no. 230 and 231 be given to Sadhvi Su Shri Bhuvneshwari Devi disciple of late Shri 1008 Rameshwara Anand Ji Maharaj resident of Ban Ganga Katra for her lifetime. After her the sole proprietory rights were to be transferred to petitioner no.2- Sat Guru Sewa Trust Chadwal. According to the site plan, infrastructure such as Hospital Complex, home for the aged, Lunger Hall, Satsang Hall, Satsang Stage, general toilet, Ashram, Sant Niwas, Guest House, Pujari Ashram, Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Yoga Centre etc. were to be constrvicted. The Tehsildar Hiranagar vide order No. OQ/131 dated 04.05.2012 stopped the construction work over the aforementioned land. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and ors v. State of Punjab and Ors, (2011) 11 SCC 396 , has been monitoring encroachment on the common purpose land of every village including 'Shamlat Deh'. All the State Governments are required to send periodical reports to Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The Judgment was conveyed to Tehsildar Hiranagar by the Financial Commissioner Revenue. It has also been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that Shamlat deh land must be restored to the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha for the common use of the villagers. The management of such a land be entrusted to Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha to ensure rights of the community over the common land to avoid use of it totally inconsistent with its original character for personal aggrandizement at the cost of village community. 3. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Kathua in appeal which has also been dismissed by observing that the request of the appellant was not acceptable as it amounted to transferring the land which is described in the revenue record as 'Gair Mumkin Talab- Mufeed Aam'. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner the appellant-petitioners filed OWP no. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner the appellant-petitioners filed OWP no. 1700/2012 relatable to the instant appeal, which highlights that an agreement was executed by one Karam Singh, Ex. Capt. Rattan Chand, Gopal Singh and Kamal Kumar for and on behalf of the villagers with Sadhvi Su Shri Bhuvneshwari Devi. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing as under.- "Agreement executed by Karam Singh, Ex. Capt. Rattan Chand, Gopal Singh and Kamal Kumar for and on behalf of the villagers with Sadhvi Su Shri Bhuvneshwari Devi, ex facaie indicates it to be a void document, in that, without getting the recorded land use of the land in question changed by approaching the Competent Authority in this behalf, the villagers had absolutely no authority to deliver its possession to Sadhvi Su Shri Bhuvneshwari Devi and constitute a Trust for developing bit for purposes other than the one for which it stands sanctioned long ago. The order issued by the Tehsildar, which is found in compliance of the directions issued by. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagpal Singh and ors v. State of Punjab and Ore, reported as AIR 2011 SC 1123 , to preserve the land reserved aS Pond- Gair Mumkin Talab- Mufeed Aam, cannotm therefore, be faulted. No case for entertaining the Writ Petition is, therefore, made out." 4. We have heard Mr. R. S. Thakur learned senior counsel for the appellant-petitioners and Mr. H. A. Sidiquee, learned AAG at length and have perused the paper book with their able assistance. With their consent we have taken the appeal on board for final disposal. 5. Mr. Thakur has raised the following submissions: (a) It is submitted that according to the revenue record the land in dispute is owned by a proprietory body of the whole village under the column of ownership and, therefore, the village community is entitled to use the land the way they like. The land, otherwise, would be put to use of common purposes even by Su Shri Bhauvneshwari Devi and the Trust-appellant-petitioner no.2. Even otherwise it is claimed that the pond has dried up which covers not more than 7 kanals of land. Under the ownership column the land has been described as 'Shamlat Deh Hassab Hissas Jaddi' which was changed to 'Shamlat Deh Gair Munkisma Malikan'. (b) That principles of natural justice stand flagrantly violated. Even otherwise it is claimed that the pond has dried up which covers not more than 7 kanals of land. Under the ownership column the land has been described as 'Shamlat Deh Hassab Hissas Jaddi' which was changed to 'Shamlat Deh Gair Munkisma Malikan'. (b) That principles of natural justice stand flagrantly violated. Referring to various paras of the memo of appeal, learned counsel has argued on the basis of para 7 that in the State of Jammu and Kashmir even the Shamlat land belongs to the proprietory body of the village community which can be subjected to partition. For the aforesaid purpose learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in case of Ramesh Chander and ors v. The Financial Commissioner and ors. 1977 JK Law Reports, 464. (c) That the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case as it has emerged from the provisions of Punjab Acts which are entirely different than the Statutes applicable to the Shamlat land situated in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 6. Mr. H. A. Sidiquee, learned AAG, has, however, argued that para 20 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) has placed the position of law beyond any doubt. According to the learned counsel if there is a pond in the village as per revenue record then it cannot be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or far a allied purpose. In such a case the occupant can be ordered to vacate the land after removing the house built over it. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that this appeal does not merit admission. 8. Once the land in dispute is described in the revenue record as 'Gair Mumkin Talab- Mufeed Aam' then it cannot be diverted to any other use by raising construction of Hospital, Hall etc. We are of the considered opinion that para 16 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) would fully apply to the facts of the present case. We are of the considered opinion that para 16 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) would fully apply to the facts of the present case. The entry in the revenue record as it stand, show that it is 'Shamlat Deh Gair Munkisma Malikan' which does not support the claim of the appellant-petitioners that the land belong to the village proprietory body. It is well settled that Shamlat Deh land is utilized only for the benefit of village community involving common purposes. We do not find any support for the argument of Mr. Thakur from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramesh Chander's case that even Shamlat Deh land could b subjected to partition. The argument lacks substance because Shamlat Deh land in the present case stands utilized for the common purpose of the village community. It is not Shamlat land which has remained unutilized. Accordingly we find no substance in this argument. 9. We fail to find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners that the principles of natural justice have been violated. On the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of Jagpal Singh's case (supra), Tehsildar is required to submit reports to the Supreme Court from time to time and has rightly spotted an illegality. The agreement between the village body and Sadhvi Su Shri Bhuvneshwari Devi has been rightly held to be void by the learned Single Judge which has no sanction of law. No land which is used as Shamlat Deh could be given to a private person or a Trust. It is well settled that rules of natural justice are not always necessary to be applied particularly in cases where it results in revival of an illegal action. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt of A.P, AIR 1966 SC 828 ; para 38 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar and ore (1999) 8 SCC 16 and para 17 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237 . (1999) 6 SCC 237 . After placing reliance on various observations made in Gadde Venkateswara's case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the concluding part of para 17 of the judgment in M.C. Mehta's case (supra) proceeded to observe as under:- "The above case is a clear authority for the proposition that it is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of natural justice. The Court can under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party, in violation of the principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law." (Emphasis added) 10. We are further of the view that in para 16 of the judgment in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) it has been categorically laid down that the land which is reserved for ponds cannot be utilized for any other purpose. It would be profitable to read para 16 of the judgment which reads thus:- "16. The present is a case of and recorded as a village pond. This Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, AIR 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(4) 9 CTC 1 Madras) held that land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. The Court ordered the respondents to vacate the land they had illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house. We pass a similar order in this case." 11. In the present case also the revenue entry shows 'Gair Mumkin Talab-Mufeed-i-Aam'. It may not be correct that the whole area is covered by pond but it has to be restored to its original glory. At least seven kanal area is still covered by the pond. In any case It would not give any entitlement to petitioner no. 1 to first hand over the 'Shamlat Deh' land to a 'Sadhavi' and then to a Trust-petitioner no.2. 12. As a sequel to the above discussion this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.