JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - The petitioners claiming themselves to be permanent residents of Village Kalwan, Tehsil and District Patiala pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated 31.5.2013/16.6.2014(Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and order dated 2.12.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 (vide which the petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “The 1961 Act”) of the petitioners, had been dismissed. 2. The dispute emerging for adjudication is as to whether the land in dispute is or is not shamlat deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act? In fact this dispute even earlier had engaged the attention of the authorities under the 1961 Act and the Courts in a long drawn litigation which had been started by one Tara Singh (now deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners when he had filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act in the Court of Collector/Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab, Patiala for declaration of his title qua the suit land measuring 123 Kanals situated in village Kalwa, Tehsil and District Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated 2.12.2003(Annexure P- 1). Appeal preferred by him against the said order was accepted by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) vide order of 15.2.2007(Annexure P-2). Respondent No.4 herein i.e. Gram Panchayat village Kalwa, Tehsil and District Patiala had challenged the said order (Annexure P-2) before this Court by way of CWP No.6727 of 2007 whereupon the case was remanded vide order dated 30.3.2012(Annexure P3) to the Ist Appellate Authority for rehearing. After rehearing, the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed on 31.5.2013. Sequelly the respondent Gram Panchayat was held to be owner of the land in dispute. 3. Thereafter, notice dated 9.8.2014 (Annexure P-5) was issued by Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession. It is claimed by the petitioners that since land in dispute is Banjar Qadim, the same could not have been held to be shamlat deh land and thus in turn could not have been owned by the Gram Panchayat. It is claimed by the petitioners that since land in dispute is Banjar Qadim, the same could not have been held to be shamlat deh land and thus in turn could not have been owned by the Gram Panchayat. It is further averred that neither there is evidence of user of the land for common purposes of the village nor it could have been so used being banjar qadim and thus, it could not have been in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. It is also claimed that record of leasing out of the land by the Gram Panchayat is also made up one and there was no occasion or circumstance that it could be called shamlat deh having vested in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. It is claimed that the civil suit filed by the petitioners for declaration and rectification of the revenue entries in their favour is also pending. 4. Great emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the petitioners on order dated 15.2.2007 of the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) which no more exists for their benefit as the same was set aside long ago. Vide order dated 30.3.2012 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6727 of 2007, a Division Bench of this Court setting aside the said order of the Commissioner had remitted the matter to the Ist Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) for a fresh decision in accordance with law. To suffer repetition, after remand, the Commissioner rejecting their claim, has decided appeal of the present petitioners against them while affirming order dated 2.12.2003 passed by the Collector-cum-Division Deputy Director, Patiala. Sequelly, Gram Panchayat has been declared to be owner of the land in dispute. 5. Even when, we view the entire spectrum of dispute raised by the petitioners through the canvass of revenue record relied upon by the petitioners themselves, their plea that, not the Gram Panchayat but they are owners of the land, has no merit. 6. Before this exercise is undertaken, for better understanding and clarity of the matter in dispute, it would be appropriate to advert to the legal position with regard to the term shamlat deh as defined in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. 7. 6. Before this exercise is undertaken, for better understanding and clarity of the matter in dispute, it would be appropriate to advert to the legal position with regard to the term shamlat deh as defined in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. 7. With the enforcement of the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1954 Act’) the lands with description as shamlat deh, whether simply mentioned as shamlat deh or explained with expressions viz. ‘Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat’, ‘Zare Khewat’ or ‘Hasab Rasad Paimana Malkiat’, had vested in respective Gram Panchayats. Soon thereafter, it was felt that the 1954 Act had not provided for a wholesome definition of shamlat deh. This deficiency in the 1954 Act resulted in its repeal whereafter the Act came in to operation as Act of 1961. 8. Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act incorporates a detailed definitive regime to fix the contours as also domain of the term shamlat deh. Section 2(g) (i) to (ix) provides for situations in which land mentioned in these sub-clauses is to be excluded from shamlat deh. Concomitantly, Section 2(g) 1 to 5 provides for nature of land mentioned in sub-clauses which is to be included in the term shamlat deh. Sub-clause 6 of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act has been inserted vide the Haryana Act No.9 of 1992 to clarify that the land reserved for ‘common purpose’ in a Consolidation Scheme, would vest in the Gram Panchayat. Section 2(g) 6 introduced in the main Act vide the Haryana Act No.9 of 1992 thus broadens scope and sweep of ‘Shamlat land’. 9. Section 3(1) of the 1961 Act stipulates that the 1961 Act shall apply and before the commencement of this Act, the shamlat law as dealt with in 1954 Act, shall be deemed to have always applied to all lands which are shamlat deh as defined in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the 1961 Act. Correspondingly, Section 3(2)(i) of the 1961 Act provides that where any land has vested in a Gram Panchayat under the shamlat law (the 1954 Act) but is excluded from shamlat deh by sub-clauses (i) to (ix) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act, all rights, titles and interest of the Gram Panchayat shall cease and shall be vested in such person or persons in whom they vested before the shamlat law (1954 Act). Section 4 of the Act provides for vesting of land in Gram Panchayats and protection of possession of non-proprietors. 10. A cojoint reading of Section 2(g), Section 3 as also Section 4 of the 1961 Act manifests that land wherever described as shamlat deh stood vested in Gram Panchayat by virtue of the 1954 Act and only such shamlat deh is excluded from vesting in a Gram Panchayat as is so provided by Section 2(g) or Section 4 of the 1954 Act. In other words, the 1961 Act has retrospective operation to the extent provided by Section 3. For further convenience and clarity Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the 1961 Act are reproduced as below:- “3. Lands to which this Act applies: (1)This act shall apply and before the commencement of this Act the shamlat law shall be deemed always to have applied to all lands which are shamlat deh as defined in Clause (g) of Section 2". (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 4,— (i) where any land has vested in a Panchayat under the shamlat law, but such land has been excluded from shamlat deh under clause (g) of Section 2 other than the land so excluded under sub-clause (ii-a) of that clause, all rights, title and interest of the panchayat in such land as from the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1995, shall cease and all such rights, title and interest shall vest in the person or persons in whom they were vested, immediately before the commencement of the shamlat law;” 11. A combined reading of these provisions, reveals that a landowner coming with the plea of exclusion of his land from shamlat deh is required to establish that his land falls within one or more of the exclusion clauses, from the date stipulated in the clause so invoked. When an exclusion clause invoked by the landowner does not stipulate any date for its application, then such landowner is required to prove the ingredients of the exclusion clause as on the date of enactment of 1961 Act i.e. 4.5.1961. 12. One of the grounds taken by the petitioners for exclusion of this land from shamlat deh is that it was banjar qadim and had not been ever used for common purposes of the village. 12. One of the grounds taken by the petitioners for exclusion of this land from shamlat deh is that it was banjar qadim and had not been ever used for common purposes of the village. Section 2(g)(v) of 1961 Act, though provides for exclusion of banjar qadim from shamlat deh, does not prescribe the date on which the land is to be proved to be banjar qadim. A proprietor claiming exclusion of his land under Section 2(g)(v) of the 1961 Act, thus, is required to prove that the land was banjar qadim and was not used or earmarked for ‘common purposes’ of the village according to the revenue record as it existed on 4.5.1961. In short, plea of the petitioners that the land was banjar qadim right from 1954 thus runs contrary to the law. In the present case, the petitioners are not even Khewatdars of land or proprietors of the village and have no claim but as tillers of land under the Gram Panchayat. 13. Even when revenue record relied upon by the petitioners is glanced through, the petitioners have no case. As per own case of the petitioners and as is evident from the revenue record in the year 1967- 68 Tara Singh was lessee. The same is the position in the jamabandies of 1972-73, 1977-78, 1982-1983 and 1987-1988. In 1992-93 as per which in addition to Tara Singh, others were also added as lessees. As per the lease register for the year 1978-79, the land was leased out to Jogender Singh-petitioner No.2 son of Tara Singh for the year 1979- 80. Kulwant Singh had taken the land on lease for 1980-81 and similarly other petitioners had also been taking the land on lease, year after year. The land was left to be utilized for common purposes of the village in future and it had consistently been leased out on year to year basis. 14. It would be worth notice that the land earlier was recorded in the revenue record as shamlat deh Hasdab Rasad Eraji Khewat and mutation No.515 was sanctioned in favour of Gram Panchayat, which having never been challenged, has become final. The land continued to be managed by the Gram Panchayat. It was being leased out for cultivation on year to year basis. The land continued to be managed by the Gram Panchayat. It was being leased out for cultivation on year to year basis. As has been noticed earlier, there are such entries in favour of petitioner Joginder Singh son of Tara Singh for the year 1979-80 and in favour of Piara Singh brother of Tara Singh for the year 1980-81. Leasing out of the land on lease amount of Rs.1,700/- for the year 1967-68, 1977-78 and 1987-1988 is a fact vouched by the record. Similarly for the year 1982-1983 the land was given for Rs.220/- per acre. Merely because record of leasing out of land for certain years is not readily available, does not divest the Gram Panchayat of its ownership. 15. In fact, the claim of the petitioners even otherwise is hollow as they are neither proprietors of the village nor were in possession of the land at the relevant time. Revenue record reveals that before and after coming into force of the Act of 1961 on 4.5.1961, Nagar Panchayat i.e. Gram Panchayat is recorded not only in the column of ownership but also is in column of possession in the revenue record. First entry in favour of Tara Singh son of Ronak Singh as tiller of land on lease on Rs.1,700/- for a year comes in 1967-68 and thereafter in 1972-73 but it is under the ownership of Gram Panchayat. In the jamabandies for the year 1982-83, 1987-88, 1992-93 and 1997- 98 Tara Singh predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners is shown in possession as a lessee on lease amount of Rs.1,700/- under the ownership of Gram Panchayat. 16. Thus, possession of the petitioners or their predecessors has always been permissive i.e. on lease under the Gram Panchayat. Their plea that record of leasing out of land by the Gram Panchayat is forged and fabricated remains completely unsubstantiated. 17. The land also cannot be said to be bachat land as there is nothing to substantiate the claim of the petitioners that the land is bachat land, left over after assigning use of land for common purposes, or land taken from the proprietors by applying a pro-rata cut in their holdings. 18. Consequently, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————