JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral):- The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court on 23.05.2011 whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellants challenging the order of Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh exercising the powers of Commissioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was dismissed. 2. The Gram Panchayat filed petitions under Section 11 and 7 of the Act seeking eviction of the present appellants from the land bearing Khasra Nos.640/331, 332, 333, 347, 348, 349 measuring 93 Bighas 18 Biswas situated in village Kishanpura, Tehsil and District Patiala. The learned Collector dismissed the said petition relying upon report of Sh. Hari Kishan, Special Kanungo (Ex.R-1) to hold that the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest have proved their possession prior to 26.01.1950. In appeal, the learned Commissioner returned a finding that Panchayat is the owner as per the Jamabandi produced on record for the year 2004-05 (Vikrami Samvat), 1951-52, 1959-60, 1963-64. However, the learned Commissioner found that Collector has referred to the statement of Kanungo to return a finding that the appellants are in possession prior to 26.01.1950 but such statement cannot be believed because the statement of Kanungo is incorrect and that the possession of the appellant is proved only since the years 1974-75. 3. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition holding that the land vest in Panchayat and that the Collector was not justified in holding that petitioners were in possession of land prior to 26.01.1950. 4. We have learned counsel for the parties and find that the authorities under the Act have laid emphasis on the Jamabandies to return a finding regarding ownership but the entries regarding possession have not been examined as to whether the claim of the appellants fall within Exception (viii) of Section 2(g) of the Act. Such Exception contemplates that if a proprietor is in continuous cultivating possession of land vesting in Panchayat not exceeding his share in the shamilat, prior to 26.01.1950, he is entitled to protect the same. 5. We further find that the report of Kanungo (Ex.R-1) is a summary of the Jamabandis. Such summary cannot be made basis to decide the claim of the Gram Panchayat. 5. We further find that the report of Kanungo (Ex.R-1) is a summary of the Jamabandis. Such summary cannot be made basis to decide the claim of the Gram Panchayat. The authorities under the Act were required to examine Jamabandies independently and to return a finding whether the appellants have proved their possession over the land in question prior to 26.01.1950. Since the Jamabandies have not been examined to examine the possession of the appellants, we find that the issues raised in petition under Section 11 of the Act have not been dealt with in a proper manner. The authorities under the Act were required to examine the share of the appellants in the shamilat and whether they are in cultivating continuous possession of the land since prior to 26.01.1950. 6. Since the Jamabandies have not been examined with specific reference to possession, therefore we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Bench and that of the Commissioner and remit the matter to the Commissioner to examine the Jamabandies produced on record or such other documents as the parties may wish to produce in respect of their respective contentions to return finding that the appellants herein were not in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land prior to 26.01.1950; that the appellants are the proprietors. 7. The parties to appear before the learned Commissioner on 16.07.2014. The learned Commissioner shall decide the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. ----------------