JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral):- The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Collector on 31.05.1984 (Annexure P-18) in an application under Section 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the order in an appeal under Section 7 and 11 of the Act passed by the Commissioner against the said order on 22.07.1987 (Annexure P-19). 2. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act (Annexure P-26) on 09.06.1981 and later a petition under Section 11 of the Act on 22.07.1982 (Annexure P-29). Both the petitions were decided by the common order, impugned in the present writ petition. In the petition under Section 11 of the Act, the assertion of the Gram Panchayat is that the land vest in Panchayat from the date of enforcement of the shamilat law and has been under its management, whereas the respondents (present petitioners) are now denying the title of Gram Panchayat on the basis of long possession. The present petitioners in the reply (Annexure P-30) asserted that the Panchayat has never managed this land. It has been under actual use, occupation and cultivation of the petitioners. It was asserted that the present petitioners are in actual possession of land prior to 26.01.1950 and continues to be in possession thereafter. It is also asserted that in earlier proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Act, a finding was returned that the petitioners were in actual possession of the land even prior to 26.01.1950, therefore, in view of the said decision, the petition under Section 11 of the Act is not tenable. 3. The learned Collector in the order (Annexure P-18) found that total land of the village is 3622 Bighas, the shamilat land is 1133 Bighas, whereas the land of khewatdars is 2489 Bighas. In view of the total land owned by the proprietors and the shamilat, it was found that the share of the petitioners is 49 Bighas 10 Biswas. It was also found that the petitioner is in possession in respect of land measuring 47 Bighas 10 Biswas i.e. 9 Bighas 16 Biswas out of Khasra No.887 and 38 Bighas 2 Biswas out of Khasra No.941 as per the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 (Ex.R3). It was also found that the petitioner is in possession in respect of land measuring 47 Bighas 10 Biswas i.e. 9 Bighas 16 Biswas out of Khasra No.887 and 38 Bighas 2 Biswas out of Khasra No.941 as per the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 (Ex.R3). Since the possession of the petitioners is less than their share in the land in question, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to protect their possession in terms of provisions of the Act. However, an order of ejectment in respect of land measuring 36 Kanals 1 Marla was passed against the petitioners for the reason that petitioners have failed to prove their possession over such land prior to 26.01.1950. 4. Aggrieved against the said order, Panchayat and the present petitioners filed separate appeals. The learned Joint Director, Panchayats, exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Act returned a finding that as per Jamabandi for the year 1947-48, Panchayat is the owner. In the column of cultivation, the possession is that of makbuza malkan but since the nature of land is banjar qadim, therefore, the petitioners are not found to be in possession of the land which is also not cultivable. While examining the Jamabandi for the year 1951-52, it was found that land is different from the earlier land. In the Jamabandi relating to period 1955-56 in the column of cultivation, the names of Shadi Ram, Pirthi Ram and Durga Dass are mentioned for the first time in the Khasra Numbers 887 and 941. Since the land was banjar qadim in these Jamabandies, therefore it was concluded that the possession of the petitioner is not continuing cultivating possession which alone could bring their claim within Exception of Section 2(g) of the Act. 5. In the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that earlier petition of the Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act was dismissed on 26.08.1975 (Annexure P-20) wherein it was found that petitioners are in possession of land in dispute since prior to 26.01.1950. The land in question in the aforesaid proceedings was land measuring 13 Kanals 17 Marlas comprising in Khasra Nos.4//6(1-2), 14 (0- 15), 16(8-0), 25/1 (4-0). It is further pointed out that appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Collector on 15.03.1976 (Annexure P-21) and that revision by the learned Financial Commissioner on 14.02.1979 (Annexure P-22). The land in question in the aforesaid proceedings was land measuring 13 Kanals 17 Marlas comprising in Khasra Nos.4//6(1-2), 14 (0- 15), 16(8-0), 25/1 (4-0). It is further pointed out that appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Collector on 15.03.1976 (Annexure P-21) and that revision by the learned Financial Commissioner on 14.02.1979 (Annexure P-22). Therefore, the Panchayat cannot claim possession of the said land in the present proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that from the Jamabandies produced on record, the petitioner is reflected to be in possession supported by the entries in the Khasra Girdawri (Annexure P-6). Since the petitioners are in possession prior to 26.01.1950, therefore, the Panchayat is not entitled to claim possession in terms of Section 2(g) Exception (viii). It is also contended that, even if the land is banjar qadim but Khasra No.887 measuring 9 Bighas and 16 Biswas is chahi and is recorded in cultivating possession of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioners have proved their possession at least over the part of the suit land prior to 26.01.1950. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as 1997(1) PLR 363 titled as ‘Naurang Singh (dead) through Lrs Vs. State of Punjab” to contend that as per Jamabandi (Annexure P-2) for the year 2004-05 Bikrami Samvat corresponding to 1947-48 A.D., the entry in the column of ownership is shamilat deh hasab rasad az khewat whereas maqbuza malkan are recorded in the column of possession, the user of land being banjar qadim measuring 1159 Bighas 10 Biswas. 7. This Court in LPA No.54 of 2012 titled as ‘Gram Panchayat Vs. Financial Commissioner and others’, decided on 07.05.2014 examining the similar entry, relying upon earlier judgments has held that the land described in the revenue record in the column of ownership as shamilat deh vest in the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g) read with Section 4 of the Act. It has been held to the following effect:- “Thus, the finding recorded by the Commissioner holding that the land does not vest with the Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act, is patently illegal and unwarranted. It has been held to the following effect:- “Thus, the finding recorded by the Commissioner holding that the land does not vest with the Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act, is patently illegal and unwarranted. The judgment in Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 578 [2003(2) PLR 658], referred to by the Commissioner pertains to Jumla Mustrka Malkan Land, which came to be vested in Panchayat consequent to the amendment in the Act by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992. The issue raised and decided in the aforesaid case has nothing in common with the issue arising in the present case. In view of the above, we find that the land in dispute is proved to be vesting with the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(1) of the Act and that Section 2(g)(5) of the Act has no applicability to the land in question.” 8. In view of the above, the land in question vest in Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(1) read with Section 4 of the Act. Since the land is banjar kadim, it cannot be in cultivating possession. In respect of the argument that part of land (Khasra No.887) is chahi and is in continuous cultivating possession of land, is not tenable. In fact Shadi Ram and Durga Dutt, Atma Ram, Paras Ram, Prithi Ram predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners are reflected in possession of 6 Bighas 16 Biswas of land which is Rosli. Rosli land is not cultivable. Therefore, the petitioners can claim cultivating possession over land measuring 3 Bighas alone. But even in respect of such land, there is no evidence to link with the land after consolidation. The subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1951-52 (Annexure P-33), again records possession of Shadi Ram Durga Datt, Atma Ram, Paras Ram, Pirithi Ram in equal shares of Khasra No.887 which consists of 6 Bighas 16 Biswas as rosli land. The Khasra Girdawari prior to the said period is Annexure P-6. The land in the aforesaid Khasra Girdawari including the land measures 9 Bighas and 16 Biswas is described as banjar qadim. Therefore, prior to 26.01.1950, the land in possession of the petitioners is not capable of being put to cultivation since it is a banjar qadim land. The Khasra Girdawari prior to the said period is Annexure P-6. The land in the aforesaid Khasra Girdawari including the land measures 9 Bighas and 16 Biswas is described as banjar qadim. Therefore, prior to 26.01.1950, the land in possession of the petitioners is not capable of being put to cultivation since it is a banjar qadim land. Though, the possession of the petitioners is proved to be over land measuring 3 Bighas but there is no proof that the said land is the same land which continues to be in possession of the petitioners. Even in respect of 3 Bighas of land, there cannot be any conclusive finding that the petitioners were in cultivating possession prior to 26.01.1950. Jamabandi for the year 1947-48 records possession over 3 Bighas of land but the subsequent Khasra Girdawari again reflects the land as banjar qadim. In view of the revenue record, we are unable to return a finding that the petitioners are in continuous cultivating possession of the land in question measuring 83 Kanals 18 Marlas prior to 26.01.1950 including land measuring 3 Bighas comprising in Khasra No.887. There is no link evidence to correlate the land described in the revenue record for the year 1947-48, 1951-52 with the post consolidation record. 9. Another argument which is required to be noticed is that Gram Panchayat could not file a petition under Section 11 of the Act since the Gram Panchayat was expressly included in Section 11 of the Act as the authority competent to file petition through amending Punjab Act No.25 of 1993. The argument is thus that though Section 11 of the Act empowers “any person” to file a petition claiming title over the Panchayat land but Panchayat is not included in such expression, therefore, the petition filed by Panchayat prior to amendment of the Act is not maintainable. 10. A similar argument was raised before one of us sitting singly in CWP No.6857 of 1988, titled as ‘Jit Singh son of Ghisu (dead) through legal representatives Vs. Joint Director, Panchayat and others’, decided on 04.02.2011. It was held that the amendment carried out by Punjab Act No.25 of 1993 is a clarificatory amendment in as much as any person includes a juristic entity i.e. a Panchayat in terms of Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. Joint Director, Panchayat and others’, decided on 04.02.2011. It was held that the amendment carried out by Punjab Act No.25 of 1993 is a clarificatory amendment in as much as any person includes a juristic entity i.e. a Panchayat in terms of Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. The relevant extract reads as under:- “The said part of the order has been followed in Raja Ram (dead) through his legal representatives Vs. Joint Director, Panchayats, Chandigarh and others, CWP No.1786 of 1985, decided on 05.07.2010. The Division Bench of this Court has set aside the liberty granted by the Collector to file petition under Section 11 of the Act, but it also observed that vires of Section 11 are not in challenge and that the Bench has not considered the matter in detail and has not expressed opinion thereon. As a matter of fact, Section 2 (40) of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 defines “person” to include any company or association or body of individuals, even if not incorporated. The relevant provision of this Section reads as under:- “2. Definitions:- In this Act and in all Punjab Acts unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.- xx xxx xxxx xxxxx (40) “person” shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.” 11. The Gram Panchayat is a juristic entity in terms of Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, the Act applicable at the time of filing of the petition under Section 11 of the Act. The relevant Section 6 of the said Act read as under:- “6. Constitution of Gram Panchayats and disqualification to be member thereof-(1) Every Sabha shall in the prescribed manner, elect from amongst its members a Gram Panchayat bearing the name of its Sabha consisting of a Sarpanch and such number of Panches not being less than four and more than ten, as the Government may determine taking into account the population of the Sabha area: Provided that the number so determined shall be exclusive of the number of women Panches deemed to have been elected under sub-section 94) or co-opted under that sub-section. (2)Every Gram Panchayat constituted under this section shall be notified by its name in the Official Gazette and it shall, by the name so notified, be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, and subject to any restriction by or under this Act or under any other law, shall have power to acquire, hold administer and transfer property moveable or immoveable, and to enter into contracts and shall by the said name sue and be sued. 12. The aforesaid Gram Panchayat Act has been repealed by Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The relevant extract from Section 10 of the said Act reads as under:- “10. Constitution of Gram Panchayat.—(1) Every Gram Sabha shall elect from amongst its members a Gram Panchayat for the Gram Sabha area bearing the name of its Gram Sabha and consisting of a Sarpanch and such number of Panches as indicate below against each slab of population taking Gram Sabha to be a multi-member single constituency, namely:- xx xxx xxxx xxxxx (2) Every Gram Panchayat constituted under this section shall be notified by its name in the Official Gazette and it shall by the name so notified come into office with effect from the date of its first meeting at which quorum is present and be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, and subject to any restriction by or under this Act or any other law, shall have power to acquire, hold, administer and transfer property movable or immovable, and to enter into contracts and shall by the said name sue and be sued.” Though Section 11 has been subsequently amended vide Act No.25 of 1993 and for the expression “any person”, the words “any person or Panchayat” have been substituted, but such amendment is only to clarify the existing position in law. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition by the Panchayat under Section 11 of the Act was not maintainable prior to the amendment of Section 11 vide Punjab Act No.25 of 1993. The expression “person” as it existed in Section 11 of the Act would include a statutory entity that is Gram Panchayat.” 13. The expression “person” as it existed in Section 11 of the Act would include a statutory entity that is Gram Panchayat.” 13. Thus, the Panchayat was competent even prior to insertion of Gram Panchayat in Section 11 of the Act vide Punjab Act No.25 of 1993 as the authority competent to claim question of title. 14. Another argument raised by Mr. Markan is that after Section 7 petition was dismissed on 26.08.1975 (Annexure P-20), Panchayat was bound to file a petition within 30 days of the day when cause of action arises. Reliance is placed upon Rule 21-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’). The relevant clause reads as under:- “21-A. Decisions of claim of right, title or interesting shamilat deh. (1) Any person claiming a right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in the panchayat may submit an application in the form of a statement duly signed and verified in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, supported by a copy of the revenue record within thirty days from the date of accrual of cause of action to the Collector. (2) The Collector shall, after receiving the application, send notice to the Panchayat concerned along with the copy of the application directing it to appear before him on the date fixed for the purpose. The Collector shall decide the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties to substantiate their respective claims.” 15. A petition under Section 11 of the Act is a petition to seek adjudication of title over the land said to be vesting in Panchayat. Such petition is required to be filed in the manner prescribed under Rule 21-A of the Rules. A Division Bench of this Court in Sarwan Singh and others Vs. Gram Panchayat Balad Kalan, 1984 PLJ 42 and others has held that in Section 11 proceedings, the Collector is not to decide correctness of the order passed under Section 7 of the Act and therefore, every threatened injury to title would give a recurring cause of action. It has been further held that if the action is not taken within 30 days of dispossession, it would be time barred, but not otherwise. The Court observed as under: “8. It has been further held that if the action is not taken within 30 days of dispossession, it would be time barred, but not otherwise. The Court observed as under: “8. A reading of the aforesaid rule shows that the limitation of 30 days has to be calculated from the date of accrual of cause of action. A combined reading of section 11 (1) with rule 21-A (1) would show that the title to the property has to be decided by the Collector and not about the correctness of any order passed under section 7 of the Act and, therefore, every threatened injury to title would give a recurring cause of action. Recurring cause of action will get ceased the moment a person claiming that the land has not vested in the Panchayat, is dispossessed therefrom. From the date of dispossession, if the claim is not filed under section 11 of the Act and is filed beyond that time limit, it would obviously be time barred, otherwise it would not be time barred.” 16. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the plea that claim of the Gram Panchayat is barred by limitation is clearly not sustainable. The cause of action to claim possession is the recurring cause of action, therefore, the limitation of 30 days would not be applicable to the proceedings initiated by the Panchayat. 17. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is this dismissed with no order as to costs. ----------------