JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.: (Oral) - The petitioners are residents of village Jhuggian Gulam, P.O. Shekhupur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala. They have laid challenge to the orders dated 10.12.2013 and 11.12.2015 whereby the Collector, Kapurthala dismissed their declaratory petition filed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the 1961 Act’) and the appeal preferred by them has also been dismissed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the 1961 Act. 2. In the above-stated petition, the petitioners sought a declaration of their ownership and possessory rights in respect of the land measuring 106 kanals 5 marla fully described in the head-note of the petition, which is situated within the revenue estate of their village. They asserted that the respondent-Gram Panchayat has no claim whatsoever and they are in possession of the land in dispute from the time of their fore-fathers, i.e., even prior to the year 1947. 3. It may be observed at the outset that in a dispute between the Gram Panchayat and the proprietors of the village on the question as to whether the land constitutes ‘shamlat deh’ and vests in Gram Panchayat, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is expressly barred under the 1961 Act and power to adjudicate such issues has been vested in the Collector under Section 11 thereof. 4. The expression ‘shamlat deh’ is defined in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. The plea taken by the petitioners to the effect that they are in possession of the suit land since the year 1947 from the time of their fore-fathers, obviously means that they wanted exclusion of the subject-land from the ambit of shamlat deh under Section 2(g)(iii) of the 1961 Act, according to which, if the land “has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before the 26th January, 1950”, then it is liable to be excluded and does not fall within shamlat deh. 5. The onus was on the petitioners. They took a stand that the subject-land was owned by the Muslims who constituted major population of the village before partition of the country but all of them migrated to Pakistan and since then the land was in their cultivating possession. 6. 5. The onus was on the petitioners. They took a stand that the subject-land was owned by the Muslims who constituted major population of the village before partition of the country but all of them migrated to Pakistan and since then the land was in their cultivating possession. 6. The Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, took a categoric plea that the subject-land is Banjar Kadim and it was never cultivable, hence cultivating possession of the land by the Muslims before 1947 or by the petitioners’ families thereafter does not arise. It was also maintained that before and after the consolidation which took place in the year 1959, the land is shown to be shamlat deh Hasab Rasad Khewat which cannot be said to be owned by the proprietors unless they establish that it was partitioned amongst them and they were in individual cultivating possession as per their respective shares as on 26.01.1950. 7. The Collector as well as the Appellate Authority have rejected the petitioners’ claim holding that they have failed to establish their cultivating possession over the land in dispute since 26.01.1950. 8. With a view to satisfy ourselves, we directed the petitioners to place on record the revenue entries showing the nature of the land as well as of their possession. In deference thereto, the petitioners have placed on record the jamabandies for the years 1959-60 and 2008-09 (A-1 & A-2). 9. It may be seen that in the jamabandi for the year 1959-60, nature of the land is recorded as ‘Banjar Qadim’ which is not a cultivable land and in the column of ownership, “shamlat deh majkoor” is recorded as its owner. In the jamabandi for the year 2008-09, the possession is recorded of Mukhtar Singh son of Harditt Singh, Harbans Singh son of Mukhtar Singh and Waryam Singh son of Mukhtar Singh in equal 1/3rd shares in their capacity as ‘gairmarusi’, i.e. tenants at Will and not as the proprietors. Similarly, the revenue record does not depict that the land was partitioned amongst the proprietors before the year 1950 or they are in its cultivating possession as per their respective shares. It necessarily means that the subject-land being ‘Banjar Kadim’ stands included in the definition of “shamlat deh” under Section 2(g)(5) of the 1961 Act which reads as follows:- “...2. Similarly, the revenue record does not depict that the land was partitioned amongst the proprietors before the year 1950 or they are in its cultivating possession as per their respective shares. It necessarily means that the subject-land being ‘Banjar Kadim’ stands included in the definition of “shamlat deh” under Section 2(g)(5) of the 1961 Act which reads as follows:- “...2. Definitions-- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- xx xx xx xx (g) “shamlat deh” includes-- xx xx xx xx (5) lands in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village, according to revenue record......” 10. For the reasons afore-stated we do not find any merit in this case. 11. Dismissed.