JUDGMENT Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - Petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by District Judge, Panipat and order dated 22.07.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Panipat, whereby application for grant of ad interim injunction was declined by the Courts below. [2].Brief facts are that the petitioners claimed that they were the proprietors of the village and and have interest in the common land which vests in the Gram Panchayat as Shamlat Deh. Land was reserved as Charand (grazing ground for the cattle) during consolidation and the Gram Panchayat was recorded as owner in possession in respect thereof. There was no dispute regarding title of the Gram Panchayat. Petitioners asserted that Shamlat Deh of the village cannot be utilized for any other purpose than the one prescribed in the revenue record. They filed suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant-Gram Panchayat from raising any construction of Chopal/Gaushala or changing the nature of the property. Restraint qua alienation was also sought in respect of the suit land which stood vested in Panchayat as Shamlat Deh. [3]. Trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court declined the prayer for grant of ad interim injunction to the petitioners. [4].Evidently the land in question is a Shamlat land and vests in the Gram Panchayat. Panchayat seeks to construct a Gaushala on the Shamlat land which has been reserved as Charand. It is a settled principle of law much less under Section 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the 1961 Act’) that all lands vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under this Act shall be utilized or disposed of by the Panchayat for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village concerned in the manner prescribed. [5].The construction of Gaushala on a land reserved for Charand is always beneficial to the village community as common purpose is being achieved. Panchayat is competent to utilize Shamlat Land for common purpose of village community. Panchayat is empowered to achieve the purpose. If, any person is aggrieved of such action, he or she can avail remedy under Section 6 of the 1961 Act by filing an appeal against the decision of the Panchayat within the time prescribed before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, who can confirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Panchayat in accordance with law. [6]. If, any person is aggrieved of such action, he or she can avail remedy under Section 6 of the 1961 Act by filing an appeal against the decision of the Panchayat within the time prescribed before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, who can confirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Panchayat in accordance with law. [6]. At the time of grant of ad interim injunction existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of causing irreparable loss by not granting injunction are to be seen. None of the aforesaid ingredients are attracted in favour of the plaintiff/petitioners. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that under Rule 3 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rule, 1964, the Gram Panchayat shall obtain approval of its plan for utilizing land in proposed manner from the Panchayat Samiti, if the area of land sought to be utilized exceeds 100 acres and in case such area exceeds 1000 acres, then the approval of the Government is required to be obtained. [7].As per resolution of the Gram Panchayat, construction of Gaushala has been proposed. As per recital of the resolution, Gaushala would be constructed on an approximate area of 50 acres only. In view thereof, neither the approval of the Panchayat Samiti, nor the approval of the appropriate Government is required to be obtained as the area is less than 100 acres. [8]. After passing of resolution by the Gram Panchayat, aggrieved person can resort to Section 6 of the 1961 Act by approaching the competent authority for rescinding the resolution. Apparently, there exists no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, nor there is any likelihood of causing irreparable injury to the petitioners in the event of not granting ad interim injunction. [9]. In view of totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that there is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below while declining ad interim injunction to the petitioners. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.