JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - Challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector in a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by Gram Panchayat and the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the Commissioner affirming the said order. 2. Respondent No.2 – Gram Panchayat sought eviction of the petitioners from the land comprising in Khewat Khatoni No.24/25, Khasra No.44 min (3-0) situated at Village Bishangarh, Tehsil & District Patiala. The petitioners denied that the land vest in Gram Panchayat. It was asserted that the present petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest are in possession of the land for more than 50 years, therefore, the petitioners are not liable to be evicted. 3. In evidence, the petitioners produced jamabandies for the years 1950-51 as Ex.R-1; 1958-59 as Ex.R-3, 1962-63 as Ex.R-4, 1967-68 as Ex.R-5, 1972-73 as Ex.R-6, 1977-78 as Ex.R-7, 1983-84 as Ex.R-8, 1988-1989 as Ex.R-9, 1993-94 as Ex.R-10, 1994-95 as Ex.R-2, 1998-99 as Ex.R-11 & 2003- 04 as Ex.R-12 apart from producing Khasra Girdawaries and other documents. 4. After considering the entire record, the Collector returned a finding that the land is described in the revenue record as shamlat patti katakheri hasab rasad jar khewat and the same vests with the Gram Panchayat. It was found that Khasra No.254 & 255, the old khasra of the present No.44, are reserved for charand. Therefore, the land in question is reserved for common purposes of the village and the petitioners have failed to prove their continuous cultivating possession prior to 26.01.1950. With the said findings, the petition under Section 7 was allowed. In appeal filed by the petitioners, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) found that in the Jamabandi for the years 1962-63 and 1972-73, the land is recorded in possession of bila lagan bawaja kabza najaij i.e. in forcible and unauthorized possession without payment of land revenue. It was also found that the petitioners and their ancestors were not in cultivating possession prior to 26.01.1950. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners are in possession for more than 50 years and, therefore, they are not liable to be evicted in terms of Exception (viii) to Section 2(g) of the Act. 6. It was also found that the petitioners and their ancestors were not in cultivating possession prior to 26.01.1950. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners are in possession for more than 50 years and, therefore, they are not liable to be evicted in terms of Exception (viii) to Section 2(g) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners are not proved to be proprietors nor are in possession on or before 26.01.1950 apart from the fact that the land is not cultivable, which alone bring the land in question within Exception (viii) to Section 2 (g) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents also refers to a judgment of this Court delivered on 28.03.2014 in a bunch of cases, the main judgment being in CWP No.1182 of 2012 titled ‘Randhir Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab & others’ [2014(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1513 (DB)], in respect of land in question comprising in Khasra No.44 itself, the occupants have been ordered to be evicted. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present petition. In the jamabandi for the year 1950-51, the entry in the column of ownership is shamlat patti katakheri hasab rasad jar khewat. The petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest are not reflected to be in possession of any land. It was only in the jamabandi for the year 1958-59, wherein shamlat patti katakheri majkoor is reflected as owner in the ownership column, but the name of Bachan Singh etc. finds mention in Khasra Nos.41, 42, 43 & 44. The land is described as Barani. The petitioners are not reflected to be in possession of land on or before 26.01.1950 and the land described is shamlat patti katakheri hasab rasad jar khewat used for charand. Such land vests with Panchayat under Section 2(g)(3) of the Act. Similar question in respect of Khasra No.44 was examined by this Court in Randhir Singh’s case (supra). In the said case, the petitioners claimed possession over old Khasra Nos.327 & 328 said to be corresponding to new Khasra No.44, but it was found that land is reserved for grazing purposes as per consolidation scheme. It is a shamlat deh within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. It was held to the following effect: “14. In the said case, the petitioners claimed possession over old Khasra Nos.327 & 328 said to be corresponding to new Khasra No.44, but it was found that land is reserved for grazing purposes as per consolidation scheme. It is a shamlat deh within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. It was held to the following effect: “14. A perusal of the above shows that the land described in the revenue record as shamlat patti and used according to revenue record for the benefit of village community falls within the definition of shamlat deh. Since the land in question is described as shamlat patti and has been proved to be used for common purposes i.e. for grazing, therefore, it falls within the definition of shamlat deh as contained in Section 2(g)(3) of the Act. Such is the finding recorded by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the Gram Panchayat pertaining to the land in the same village in respect of the petitions filed by some of the occupants similarly situated than the occupants in the present writ petitions and the appeals.” 8. In view of the said judgment and the revenue record produced, the land is a shamlat deh. Thus, the petitioners have been rightly ordered to be evicted. 9. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————