JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral):- The petitioners pray for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash order dated 19.9.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the Financial Commissioner has accepted, the short fall in allotment to the petitioners but, surprisingly, thereafter, by a wrong process of reasoning and by ignoring the fact that shamlat land can no longer be allotted to the petitioners, held that short fall should be made good from panchayat land. It is further submitted that as short fall of the petitioners’ land has been accepted, the respondents may be directed to make good the short fall. 3. Counsel for the State of Punjab fairly concedes that the Financial Commissioner has recorded a finding with respect to short fall in the petitioners’ land but as the petitioners’ share in shamlat has vested in the Gram Panchayat and it appears that the petitioners’ claim has been satisfied, the matter may be remitted to the Financial Commissioner for considering the question of the petitioners’ entitlement afresh, in accordance with law. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. Rachan Singh, since deceased, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11668 of 1999 praying that deficiency in land allotted to his father, to the extent of 10 bighas and 12 biswas, on account of acquisition of land for the capital project of Chandigarh, may be made good. The writ petition was disposed of, on 5.10.2005, in the following terms:- “Under these circumstances, this Court feels, that it will be in the interest of justice, if the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab is asked to look into the claim of the petitioner, raised in this petition and to give specific finding as to how much land of Kishan Singh their father was acquired and as per the policy of the State Government, how much land was allotted to him. A further finding given, “whether there exist any deficiency in the allotment of land made to the father of the petitioner namely Sh. Kishan Singh and if that is so, how the same can be made good, either by allotting equal portion of land or by paying compensation? A further finding given, “whether there exist any deficiency in the allotment of land made to the father of the petitioner namely Sh. Kishan Singh and if that is so, how the same can be made good, either by allotting equal portion of land or by paying compensation? It is made clear that, if there exist any deficiency in allotment of land, to the petitioners/their father, an effort be made to make good the same, immediately after order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab.” 6. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, considered the matter in its entirety and held as follows:- “17. With a view to adopt a cautious approach report of revenue official, Kharar was also obtained to ascertain the deficiency in the allotment of land. In the report dated 4.6.2007, the Naib Tehsildar, Khasra has given the details of the land held by Kishan Singh in village Kailer and also of the land allotted in lieu of his acquired land in village Tripari and Magar. The details have been given in the earlier part of this order. It is mentioned in the report dated 4.6.2007 that Kishan Singh owned 63B-8B of land in village Kailer as per jamabandi for the year 1940-41 and he also held proportionate share in the shamlat land of village Kailer which has been worked out as 7B -12 B. It is further mentioned in the said report and admitted fact by the petitioners also that Kishan Singh was allotted 58B-11 B in village Tripari and 4B-18B in village Magar. The land to be allotted to the displaced land owners of village Kailer was acquired by the Govt. vide notification No. C-6149-51/II-3824, dated 16 May, 1951 in village Tripari alongwith the share in shamlat land of that village and therefore Kishan Singh was only entitled to share in shamlat deh. Thus, there is no deficiency in area of land allotted to Kishan Singh so far as the land owned by him is concerned. This calculation and allotment of land has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 18.However, the bone of contention is that share in the shamlat deh. As discussed above Kishan was entitled to have proportionate share in the shamlat land as per his ownership of land in the village. This calculation and allotment of land has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 18.However, the bone of contention is that share in the shamlat deh. As discussed above Kishan was entitled to have proportionate share in the shamlat land as per his ownership of land in the village. The Naib Tehsildar has worked out in his report that Kishan Singh was having share in shamlat land 6B-16B in village Tripari and 1B-2B in village Maghar. I agree with arguments of State counsel that Kishan Singh could not claim exclusive ownership of his share in shamlat deh. He could be termed as shareholder. It is also correct that by virtue of the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961, shamlat deh of all the villages in Punjab has vested in the respective village Panchayats. As such share of Kishan Singh in the shamlat deh also vested in the Panchayat as per provisions of statutory law. 19. With a view to arrive at a just conclusion Tehsildar Kharar was again asked to clarify the position regarding the allotment of alternate land to Kishan Singh and to other person with a specific query regarding the status of share in the shamlat deh. The Tehsildar vide his report dated 28.8.07 has reported that Kishan Singh was allotted 63B-8B of land in village Tripari (58B-11B) and village Maghar (4B-18B) with proportionate share in the shamlat land. The shamlat land in village Tripari vested in the Panchayat vide mutation No. 1229, dated 15.6.1957. If shamlat deh is partitioned then Kishan Singh would also get share in the shamlat. The Tehsildar in his report has referred to the names of other persons i.e. Jota Singh, Amar Singh, Surjan Singh, Basta Singh and Harsha Singh whose land was also acquired in village Kailer and were allotted alternate and in a village Majat, Tehsil Kharar with proportionate share in the shamlat deh. It has been further made clear in the report that the aforesaid allottees in village Majat have also not been given exclusive share in the shamlat deh which vests in the Panchayat. Therefore, the share of Kishan Singh in the shamlat deh has also vested in the Panchayat. 20. It has been further made clear in the report that the aforesaid allottees in village Majat have also not been given exclusive share in the shamlat deh which vests in the Panchayat. Therefore, the share of Kishan Singh in the shamlat deh has also vested in the Panchayat. 20. It has emerged from the above discussion that Kishan Singh was allotted alternate land in lieu of the land owned by him and also deemed to have proportionate share in the shamlat land of the villages, where he was allotted land with exclusive ownership. No deficiency is made out in the allotment of land in lieu of the land, acquired from the predecessor-in interest of the petitioners.” 7. A perusal of the above extract reveals that Kishan Singh, was allotted alternative land with share in shamlat deh as his land was acquired for the capital project of Chandigarh but on account of enactment of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1953, the land proposed to be allotted came to vest in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, land could not be allotted. The learned Financial Commissioner after recording this finding could not have held that there is no deficiency in the land allotted to the petitioners. 8. We, therefore, accept the request made by counsel for the State of Punjab and remit the matter to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, for resolving the dispute with respect to entitlement and allotment of land to the petitioners, within a period of three months, from receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. --------0.B.S.0------------