JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal, J. (Oral):- The present regular second appeal at the instance of the appellant-defendant is directed against the concurrent findings of facts and law whereby suit of the respondent-plaintiffs, has been decreed. 2. The respondent-plaintiffs two in number alongwith performa defendants no.2 to 47 sought the declaration and injunction that land measuring 418 kanals 12 marlas was owned and possessed by Thola Par and was being used for common purposes by the Gram Panchayat. The mutation reflected the ownership of land in favour of the Gram Panchayat was not correct as it was exempted from the definition of shamilat deh. 3. It was alleged that suit bearing No.263 of 1963 claiming identical relief on behalf of members of Thola Par was filed in 1963. In those proceedings, Gram Panchayat passed the resolution and Sarpanch also suffered a statement and on the basis of the admission, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24.7.1971. Instead of availing the remedy before the Lower Appellate Court, Giaso filed the separate suit bearing No.35-C at Hansi but transferred to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Hansi under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Land Regulations Act, 1961 as applicable to Haryana (for short “1961 Act”). The Collector, vide order dated 25.02.1976 set aside the judgment and decree. The members of Thola Par had filed the separate suit i.e. present suit claiming the same relief by challenging the orders dated 25.02.1976 and as well as 06.02.1978 passed under Section 7 of 1961 Act. 4. The defendant opposed the suit and denied the nature and character of the property to be Thola Par and stated that it was of Gram Panchayat and possession of the appellant, was authorized and rightly so protected under the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of 1961 Act. The Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction. 5. Both the parties led extensive evidence. The trial Court by relying upon the previous judgment and decree dated 24.07.1971, resolution and statement of Sarpanch, decreed the suit and the appeal taken before the Lower Appellate Court was also dismissed. 6. Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant submitted that suit ex facie was not maintainable and the remedy for the members was under Section 13-A of 1961 Act. 6. Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant submitted that suit ex facie was not maintainable and the remedy for the members was under Section 13-A of 1961 Act. In the previous suit, no such evidence with regard to the nature and character of the land as Thola Par or list of the members had seen the light of day and judgment was on the basis of the admission. In fact, there was collusion between Sarpanch and members of the plaintiffs. The Collector in such circumstances had the power to decide the nature of the land and thus, urged this Court for setting aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below being suffered from illegality and perversity. 7. Mr. Raje Ram Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant (in CM No.8881-C of 2018) supported the aforementioned judgments and decrees and stated that concurrent findings of facts and law cannot be interfered with until and unless there is gross illegality and perversity. The Assistant Collector could not entertain the civil suit no.35-C filed by Giaso as he was not member of Thola Par nor member of the Panchayat. The ejectment proceedings were without jurisdiction and therefore, rightly so have been rejected. The respondent-plaintiffs are in continuos possession and using the same for common purposes. 8. Mr. Ramender Chauhan, learned counsel for the performa respondents also adopted the arguments of Mr. Raje Ram Kaushik, Advocate. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the judgments and decrees as well as record of the Courts below and of the view that there is force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Bikram Chaudhary. 10. It would be apt to reproduce of Section 2(g) of 1961 Act defining the shamilat deh:- (g) “shamilat deh” includes- : (I) lands described in the revenue records as shamilat Deh or Charand excluding abadi deh ; (2) shamiIat tikkas ; (3) lands described-in the revenue records as shamiIat, tarafs, patlies, pannas and thoias and used according to revenue records for. the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village ; (4) lands used or reseived for the benefit of village ‘ community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking we11s or ponds situated within the sabha area as defined in clause (mmm). the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village ; (4) lands used or reseived for the benefit of village ‘ community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking we11s or ponds situated within the sabha area as defined in clause (mmm). of section 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, excluding lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (consolidation ahd Prevention of Fragmentation ) Act. 1948 ( East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the State Government under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act;, , ‘[(4a) vacant land situate in abadi deh or gorah deh not owned by any person;] (5) lands in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village according to revenue records; but does not include land which- (i) becomes or has become shamilat deh due to river action or has been reserved as shamilat, i n villages subject to river action except shamilat deh entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue records; (ii) has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person ; [(ii-a) was shamilat deh, but has been allotted to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Government, after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985 ;]. (iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by ‘individual land holders before the 26th January, 1950 ; (iv) having been-acquired before the 26th January, 1950, by a person by purchase or in exchange for proprietary land from a co-sharer i n the shamilat deh is so recorded in the jamabandi or is supported by a valid deed ; (v) is described i n the revenue records as shamilat, taraf, patlis, pannas and thola and not use according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village; [(vi] lies outside the a abadi deh and was being used as gitwar, bara, manure pit, house or for cottage industry, immediately before the commencement of this Act ;] (vii) [.....] (viii) was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-shares not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950 ; or (ix) is used as a place of worship or for purposes subservient thereto ; (6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a village udner section 18 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragrnentation) Act, 1948 past Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the Gram Panchayat under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act. Explanation.-Lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as ‘Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Hawdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad’, ‘Jurnla Malkan’ or Mushtarka Malkan’ shall be shamilat deh within the meaning of this section.” 11. Shamilat deh would include the lands as tarafs, pattis, pannas and tholas and reserved for the benefits of village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools etc but does not include the land which due to river action has been reserved as shamilat deh, allotted on quasi permanent basis to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Govt. Shamilat deh would include the lands as tarafs, pattis, pannas and tholas and reserved for the benefits of village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools etc but does not include the land which due to river action has been reserved as shamilat deh, allotted on quasi permanent basis to any person by the Rehabilitation Department of the State Govt. and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before 26.01.1950, acquired before the aforementioned date, described in the revenue record as shamilat taraf, pattis, pannas and thola and not used according to the revenue records for the benefits of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village and used as a place of worship or for the purpose of subservient thereto and reserved for the common purposes of a village under Sections 18 and 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. 12. On conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions, it revealed that any person aggrieved of the mutation reflected in the revenue record as shamilat deh and ascertain the right to shamilat, thola panna or path is required to file the suit under Section 13-A, and not before the Civil Court. Neither any decree of 1971 in the present suit, any list of members or the revenue record had been placed on record in support of the averments. 13. Both the Courts below in such circumstances totally swayed away with the previous judgment which was on the basis of the admission. The judgment and decree on admission would not have binding effect and cannot be construed against the revenue record. 14. As an upshot of my findings, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are not sustainable and the same are hereby set aside. In view of the latest judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4988 of 2019 titled as Kirodi (since deceased) through his LRs vs. Ram Parkash and others decided on 10.05.2019, the substantial question of law in respect of regular second appeal is not required to be framed as provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 would be applicable 15. The status quo order qua the nature of the land is maintained by giving permission to the plaintiff to avail the remedy in accordance with law. 16. The status quo order qua the nature of the land is maintained by giving permission to the plaintiff to avail the remedy in accordance with law. 16. In view of the aforementioned, no cause of action survives in the application for impleadment as the applicants were not party before the Courts below. The appeal stands disposed of.