JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. This petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- 2. It is most respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated 30.07.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary liable to be quashed in the light of the submissions made in the writ petition. 3. That the respondent No. 1 be directed to admit the petitioner being in merit in the interest of justice. The respondent-1 be burdened with an exemplary cost. 4. Petitioner applied for admission to 1st year of B.Sc. (Hons) Agriculture in the respondent University undergraduate programme. As per the prospectus there is reservation of seats for two candidates each from Khalet and Rajpur Panchayats. Petitioner claims to be belonging to Rajpur Panchayat on the basis of proprietary rights and claims to be fulfilling all the eligibility criteria as per the conditions specified in the prospectus. Petitioner was selected, whereas respondent No. 2 was shown to be in the waiting list. Petitioner was given admission and deposited admission fee on 21.7.2014. 5. In the meanwhile, the respondent No. 2 challenged the admission of petitioner by way of CWP No. 5046 of 2014-E, which came up for consideration before this court on 22.7.2014 when the following orders came to be passed:- "1. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate, had caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 on 21.7.2014, and had sought time to seek instructions. Today, he has made a statement that respondent No.1 will examine the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders within one week. His statement is taken on record. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith all pending applications by directing respondent No. 1 to examine the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within one week. It goes without saying that in case, the order goes in favour of the petitioner, the requisite follow up orders be also issued. Copy dasti." 6. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, an inquiry was held and admission of the petitioner was cancelled. This order has been challenged on the ground of its being against the principles of natural justice and fair play and also as being arbitrary and confiscatory being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. Copy dasti." 6. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, an inquiry was held and admission of the petitioner was cancelled. This order has been challenged on the ground of its being against the principles of natural justice and fair play and also as being arbitrary and confiscatory being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. Notice of the petition was confined only to respondent No.1, who in its reply has stated that after passing of the orders by this court on 22.7.2014 in CWP No. 5046 of 2014-E, the matter was referred to Admission Committee, who perused the documents submitted by both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2. The Admission Committee found that the record submitted by petitioner did not meet the requirement of the prospectus and form No. V, since the petitioner could not prove her proprietary rights in Rajpur Panchayat as on the cut-off date i.e. 1.4.1966 nor her father was residing under Rajpur Gram Panchayat. The petitioner had submitted two certificates of Bonafide Himachali bearing No. 11343 of 2009 dated 31.8.2009 in which she had given her address of Gram Panchayat, Pathiar and in the other certificate issued in form No. V dated 30.5.2014 the petitioner was shown to be a resident of Gram Panchayat, Rajpur. 8. It was further found that though the name of the father of the petitioner appeared in the revenue records i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 of Mauza Rajpur, but he had not inherited property of his mother but the same was given jointly to him, Smt. Sarojni Devi and Amrish by their maternal grand father Banka Ram. The Committee further observed that the certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Rajpur dated 17.7.2014 indicated that name of Sh. Arun Kumar (father of the petitioner) son of Sh. Kedar Nath does not figure in the Parivar register, ration card and voter list of Rajpur Panchayat. 9. It was lastly observed by the Committee that though the Patwari of Patwari Circle, Tanda had initially issued a certificate in form No. V certifying Sh. Arun Kumar to be a bonafide resident of Rajpur Gram Panchayat. Kedar Nath does not figure in the Parivar register, ration card and voter list of Rajpur Panchayat. 9. It was lastly observed by the Committee that though the Patwari of Patwari Circle, Tanda had initially issued a certificate in form No. V certifying Sh. Arun Kumar to be a bonafide resident of Rajpur Gram Panchayat. However, he had later on issued another certificate/clarification dated 21.7.2014 in which he had stated that the information disclosed by him in Annexure R-2 (form No. V) was issued solely on the basis of information given by the father of petitioner, which in fact was wrong since Arun Kumar was not a bonafide resident of Gram Panchayat, Rajpur. It is on the basis of the recommendations of the Admission Committee that admission of the petitioner was cancelled and respondent No. 2 was given admission in her place. 10. Petitioner filed rejoinder reiterating the pleas as set out in the petition and made an additional plea that Patwari, who had issued the clarification in this case was in fact a relative (brother-in-law of the father) of respondent No. 2 and this certificate had been issued in order to give undue benefit to respondent No.2. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records, which were produced before us, pursuant to the directions to this effect issued on 3.9.2014. 12. The relevant extract of the provision of prospectus dealing with the reservation for Khalet and Rajpur Panchayats reads thus:- "Khalet & Rajpur Panchayats Two candidates each from Khalet & Rajpur Panchayats would be admitted in B.S.C. (Hons) Agriculture provided they fulfil the minimum qualifications as prescribed for admission to the programme. Provided that the benefit of reservation can be availed of only by the heirs/sons/ daughters of those residents of respective Panchayats who were residing in the concerned Panchayat area prior to 4 July, 1966 and still continue to have proprietary right in the concerned Panchayats. The candidates must produce certificate to this effect on the prescribed proforma (Form V of Annexure V) issued by the SDM. Provided further that, if any candidate belonging to any Panchayat area comes in the open merit, the reservation of seat to that extent will stand exhausted. The candidates must produce certificate to this effect on the prescribed proforma (Form V of Annexure V) issued by the SDM. Provided further that, if any candidate belonging to any Panchayat area comes in the open merit, the reservation of seat to that extent will stand exhausted. Note – The candidate seeking admission against the seat reserved for the Rajpur & Khalet Panchayat shall also submit a copy each of 'Shajra Nasab' and 'Jamabandi' from the Patwari concerned to prove that the ancestors of the candidate owned land and held proprietary right in the concerned Panchayat and he/ she still enjoys those rights at present." 13. The prescribed proforma as provided in form No. V of Annexure-V is extracted below:- "FORM V BONAFIED RESIDENT OF RAJPUR/KHALET GRAM PANCHAYAT Certified that Shri/Smt/Kumari…………son/daughter/spouse of Shri…………..is the legal heir of the resident of Rajpur & Khalet Panchayat area, who was residing in the Panchayat area and continues to have proprietary right in the same Panchayat prior to 4 July, 1966. Verification by Revnue Patwari of concerned Halqua. Countersigned Signature with stamp SDO (Civil) SDM/Tehsildar/Magistrate Note – The candidate seeking admission against the seat reserved for the Rajpur & Khalet Panchayat shall also submit a copy each of 'Shajra Nasab' and 'Jamabanbdi' from the Patwari concerned to prove that the ancestors of the candidate owned land and held proprietary right in the concerned Panchayat and he/she still enjoys those rights at present." 14. The admission forms are required to be accompanied with the following documents:- 1. Marks sheet of qualifying examination Yes/No 2. Certificates of High School or equivalent examination as a proof of age Yes/No 3. Character Certificate, issued by the Headmaster/Principal of the Institution last attended Yes/No 4. Certificate of being a bonafide Himachali, where applicable (Form No. 1) Yes/No 5. SC/ST/OBC certificate (Form No. II/Form III/Form-VI Yes/No 6. Certificate of being son/daughter/spouse of the serving/ex-defence personnel (Form No. IV) Yes/No 7. Certificate for proof of resident of Rajpur/Khalet Gram Panchayat (Form No. V), alongwith a copy each of Shajra Nasab and Jamabandi Yes/No 8. Certificate being a ward of freedom fighter, where applicable Yes/No 9. Evidence of claim of Kashmiri Migrant Yes/No 10. Evidence of claim of weightage for distinction in sports/NCC/NSS/ other co-curricular activities. Yes/No 11. Certificate of physically handicapped/disability Yes/No 12. Proof for gap in studies Yes/No 13. Certificate being a ward of freedom fighter, where applicable Yes/No 9. Evidence of claim of Kashmiri Migrant Yes/No 10. Evidence of claim of weightage for distinction in sports/NCC/NSS/ other co-curricular activities. Yes/No 11. Certificate of physically handicapped/disability Yes/No 12. Proof for gap in studies Yes/No 13. PDC/Proof of completion of qualifying degree duly countersigned by the Registrar Yes/No 15. Do you want to stay in Hostel? Yes/No (Signature of Candidates) Documents in order or not in order (Checking Officer)" 16. Indisputably the petitioner is not claiming herself to be a lineal descendent of any of the proprietor of Rajpur Panchayat as her specific claim is that her father Arun Kumar alongwith Smt. Sarojni Devi and Amrish had acquired property at Rajpur pursuant to a will executed in their favour by their maternal grand father Banka Ram. In case the records submitted by the petitioner are seen, these do not in any manner establish that the petitioner or her father are in fact permanent residents of Rajpur Panchayat and continued to have proprietary rights in the concerned Panchayat. Rather, the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Rajpur on 17.7.2014 clearly states that the name of Sh. Arun Kumar (father of the petitioner) son of Sh. Kedar Nath does not figure in the Parivar register, ration card and voter list of Rajpur Panchayat. At the same time, the bonafide Himachali certificate bearing No. 11343 of 2009 dated 21.8.2009 submitted by the petitioner herself certifies the petitioner to be a resident of village Pathiar, Tehsil Kangra. 17. In terms of the prospectus, one is required to be not only a resident in the concerned Panchayat area prior to 4 July, 1966, but must continue to have proprietary right in the concerned Gram Panchayat. This provision has to be read alongwith form-V of Annexure-V, which also mandates not only the requirement of a person having resided in the Panchayat area prior to 4 July, 1966 but continuance of having proprietary rights at the time of issuance of the certificate. 18. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that her father is having proprietary rights in the concerned Panchayat not only after 4 July, 1966, but even as on the date. 18. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that her father is having proprietary rights in the concerned Panchayat not only after 4 July, 1966, but even as on the date. For this purpose reliance has been placed upon the Jamabandi for the years 1963-64 where the name of Banka Ram is shown to have been recorded and thereafter reliance has been placed upon Jamabandi for the years 2010-11 wherein the name of the father of the petitioner Arun Kumar has been entered alongwith Saroj Kumari and Amrish in the column of occupation and possession. She has further relied upon certain electricity bills, which have been issued to Banka Ram. 19. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the revenue records to prove that her father has proprietary rights is totally misplaced. It is definite and an established law of the land that entries made in revenue records do not create or extinguish any title in favour of the person in whose favour it is so recorded and these entries are only relevant for fiscal purpose. 20. Father of the petitioner may have jointly inherited property by way of a will from his maternal grand father, who alone was the resident of Rajpur but that per se will not make the petitioner a resident of the concerned Panchayat area prior to 4 July, 1966 or proprietor of concerned Panchayat. The words proprietary rights have to be understood and given the same meaning as assigned to word resident. Thus, there are two mandatory requirements, which one has to fulfill before claiming the benefit of reservation meant for Khalet and Rajpur Panchayats:- (i) This benefit is only available to the heirs/sons/daughters of those residents of respective Panchayat, who were residing in the concerned Panchyat area prior to July 4, 1966. (ii) Still continue to have proprietary rights in the concerned Panchayat. 21. The term proprietary rights used in the prospectus would refer to a right which would be more than mere ownership right recorded in the revenue record. There has to be not only an assertion of ownership, but the same has to be coupled with animus to reside. (ii) Still continue to have proprietary rights in the concerned Panchayat. 21. The term proprietary rights used in the prospectus would refer to a right which would be more than mere ownership right recorded in the revenue record. There has to be not only an assertion of ownership, but the same has to be coupled with animus to reside. The father of the petitioner having inherited property from his maternal grand father on the basis of a will though may have become the owner of property in Rajpur Panchayat, but since he is not residing in the said Panchayat, he cannot be permitted to defeat the right of those original residents of Rajpur and Khalet Panchayats who belong to these Panchayats generation after generation. This would otherwise defeat the very object of incorporating such a provision in the prospectus because it is the residents of these two Panchayats, who have given their lands for the establishment of the university and it is on that account that reservation have been provided to these Panchayats. 22. In so far as the electricity bills annexed by the petitioner are concerned with the rejoinder, they itself in no manner improve the case of the petitioner any further. It is not disputed that these bills have been issued to Banka Ram, who was a resident of Gram Panchayat Rajpur and it is also not disputed that Banka Ram was resident of this Panchayat prior to 4 July, 1966 and even thereafter, but petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the same. 23. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria of reservation provided to the candidates of Khalet and Rajpur Panchayats and even otherwise there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the respondent-university. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.