JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.:- This writ petition was originally filed by Sokha and Shahdin, sons of Ibrahim, residents of village Balhera, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal, laying challenge to the orders dated 27.09.2005, 18.01.2006 and 21.04.2006 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Karnal, the Collector, Karnal and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, respectively whereby the first petitioner Sokha (since deceased and represented by LRs) was ordered to be evicted from the Gram Panchayat land under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to State of Haryana (for brevity,‘the 1961 Act’) and his appeal and revision petitions were also dismissed. Since the land was earlier in possession of his father Ibrahim, his brother Shahdin also joined him as a co-petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The report reveals that pursuant to an application filed on behalf of the petitioners, the writ petition was earlier dismissed as withdrawn on August 23, 2011. Thereafter, the legal representatives of first petitioner- Sokha moved an application to recall that order on the ground that Sokha had died on 24.03.2010 hence no application for withdrawal of the petition could be moved after his death when his legal representatives were also not brought on record. The said application was allowed and the order dismissing the writ petition was recalled qua petitioner No.1. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The question which requires determination in this case is as to what is the nature of the land and whether it vests in Gram Panchayat? The second question which needs to be answered pertains to the nature and status of the possession of deceased Sokha or his father on the land in question? 4. The land in dispute is measuring 15K 11M. The case of the Gram Panchayat is that the land has been consistently shown under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat in Column No.4 of the Jamabandi and the petitioner (since deceased) was in its unauthorised possession hence was liable to be ejected. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner was that though the land in dispute is shamlat deh but it was subject to River action and they were in its possession as co-sharers and have been cultivating for the last 25 years. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner was that though the land in dispute is shamlat deh but it was subject to River action and they were in its possession as co-sharers and have been cultivating for the last 25 years. The land in question was earlier a part of river Yamuna and it was recovered in the year 1985 and since then they had spent lacs of rupees to make it cultivable. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade held that no ‘title dispute’ was involved in this case. The land was admittedly shamlat deh which vests in Gram Panchayat and the petitioners could not produce any proof that they were co-sharers in the land or that they were in its individual cultivating possession prior to 26.01.1950, namely, the possession which is duly protected regardless of the provisions contained in the 1961 Act. 5. The above-stated finding of fact was affirmed by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. We say so for the reason that as per the jamabandi for the year 1943-44 (P-1), the ‘shamlat deh’ is duly recorded as owner of the land in dispute. It is further revealed from Column No.8 pertaining to “Area with kind of land” that the land at that time was “Banzar Qadim” and, as such it was not cultivable and therefore the plea of being in its cultivable possession at least till 26.01.1950, cannot be accepted. 7. It further appears from khatoni istemal of year 1965-66 that a part of the land was improved and it was made cultivable but the land continued to be owned by the shamlat deh. However, the cultivating possession from the year 1965-66 does not improve the status of the occupier. The subsequent entries in the Jamabandis also show that the land is owned by shamlat deh, which admittedly vests in Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the 1961 Act. 8. There is not an iota of evidence led by the petitioner(s) to prove that they were co-sharers in the land in question. That being so, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. 9. Dismissed.