JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Factual background 1. Gram Panchayat of village Dulleta, through its authorized signatory, instituted a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, (for short 'Act'). The above petition was instituted against the respondents (petitioners herein), with a claim that they be evicted from the land falling within khewat No. 1191, khasra No. 5956 (269-15), situated at village Duleta. 2. In the above petition, the Gram Panchayat pleaded, that the property in dispute is under its management, and, control, and, also falls to its ownership. It was further averred, that the Gram Panchayat was utilizing the petition property for a common purpose, inasmuch as, for the dumping of the manure of the villagers, whereas, the respondents had raised unauthorized, and, illegal construction thereons. Resultantly, it was claimed that the respondents be evicted from the petition property. 3. The respondents, in making a reply to the above petition, contended thereins, that the petition property was used for tethering cattle. Moreover, it was also contended thereins, that the petitioner is neither the owner nor in possession of the petition property. Order of the Collector concerned 4. The petition (supra) resulted in the revenue officer concerned, making a decision thereon, on 28.5.2010. Through the above made decision, the Collector concerned, after accepting the petition, proceeded to order for eviction of the respondents concerned, from the petition land. Decision of the Appellate Authority on Appeal No. 114 of 2011 5. The aggrieved respondents concerned, preferred an Appeal bearing No. 114 of 2011, before the Appellate Authority concerned. The Appellate Authority concerned, after meteing reverence to the report of the Deputy Director (Lands) and Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, whereins it becomes echoed, that the petition land measuring 10 marlas, and, reflected as 'abadi' deh, in the revenue records, rather being used as a manure pit, by the inhabitants of the village, hence proceeded to make a conclusion, that since the petition land was used for a village common purpose, therefore, the respondents' appeal, against the order of the Collector concerned, was also likewise amenable for dismissal. 6. The petitioners are pained from the concurrently made adverse orders, against them, by both the learned Collector concerned, and, by the Appellate Authority concerned. Thus, they were led to institute thereagainst the instant writ petition before this Court. 6. The petitioners are pained from the concurrently made adverse orders, against them, by both the learned Collector concerned, and, by the Appellate Authority concerned. Thus, they were led to institute thereagainst the instant writ petition before this Court. Reasons for accepting the petition and setting aside and rejecting the concurrently made orders against the petitioners by both the authorities below 7. It is not disputed that in the revenue records, the petition land is described as abadi deh. Therefore, the effect of the above, is that, with Section 2(g) of the Act, excluding thereins from vestment, those lands, described in the revenue records as abadi deh. Thus, the petition land, uncontrovertedly described as abadi deh in the revenue records, is reiteratedly not amenable for being vested in the panchayat concerned, nor the panchayat has any title as owner thereof, nor it has any right to claim valid possession thereof. Contrarily, the lawful stake holders, who have evidently raised their houses, hutments or abadis thereons, alone to the extent of their lawful possession thereons, are inferred to hold the legally permissible title, besides lawful possession thereof, and/or to make suitable user thereof. As but a natural sequel, the lands, described in the revenue records as 'abadi deh', are not amenable for user, either by the panchayat, nor hence any person outside the apposite proprietary body, can lawfully hold possession of the abadi deh land, besides cannot lawfully utilize the same. In consequence, the tacitly or implied acceptance of the contention, if any, raised by the Gram Panchayat, by both the revenue authorities, that on the petition land, there existed no abadi deh, and, that thereons a manure pit was made for user of the entire village community, is, a completely fallible conclusion. Argument as raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat 8. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Gram Panchayat concerned, had also raised a contention before this Court, that since in the petition, it was pleaded, that the relevant site is used as a manure pit, whereas, with the said pleaded fact remaining omitted to be specifically denied. Therefore, he submits, that the above fact is deemed to have been accepted, and/or, is deemed to carry an aura of truth. Reasons for rejecting the above contention 9. Therefore, he submits, that the above fact is deemed to have been accepted, and/or, is deemed to carry an aura of truth. Reasons for rejecting the above contention 9. However, the above made contention, as made by the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat, is completely devoid of merit, and, is rejected. The reason for rejecting the above made contention, becomes rested upon the trite ground, that the said plea when is completely outside the domain of the uncontested entry of abadi deh, as carried in the revenue records qua the petition land. Therefore, when as above stated, the said uncontested entry, was per se amplificatory, qua the panchayat deh having no right, title or interest in the petition property, and, also is amplificatory that there is hence no occasion for the manure pit, as may assumingly exist on the relevant site, rather being preserved for the common purpose of the village. 10. Nonetheless it appears that the said argument is rested upon, clause 2(g)(4a) of the Act, provision, whereof becomes extracted hereafter. 'Vacant land or plot situated in abadi deh or gorah deh not owned by any person" Analysis of the clause 11. A perusal of the said provision reveals, that any vacant land or plot situated in abadi deh or gorah deh, not owned by any person, rather falling within the definition of abadi deh. Resultantly, he argues that, the report of the Deputy Director (Lands) and Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, revealing that the relevant plot was used as a dumping site, or as a manure pit, by the entire village community, does carry truth. He further argues that the said manure pit or the dumping site, even if it was within the abadi deh, it yet becomes amenable to fall within the apposite inclusionary clauses of the term 'shamilat deh'. However, even the above argument cannot be accepted, as the said amendment was made in the year 2021, whereas, the petition was constituted in the year 2009 by the Gram Panchayat, before the Collector concerned. Since the above amendment was not in force, at the time of the filing of the petition, besides when it has also not been assigned any retrospectivity. Since the above amendment was not in force, at the time of the filing of the petition, besides when it has also not been assigned any retrospectivity. Thus, no valid dependence can be made thereons, nor also the present writ petition, even if it is being heard at a stage when the amendment(supra) is in force, but yet no reliance can be placed thereons, as the writ petition, is a continuation of the lis as became initiated before the Collector concerned, in the year 2009, and, imperatively when then, the above amendment was to hold force whereas, it for non assigning of retrospectivity thereto rather held then no applicable force. In other words, when it did not become enacted, at that stage, nor also it then acquired any applicable force. Resultantly, no reliance can be placed upon the above made argument, as becomes rested upon the above extracted mandate of Section 2(g)(4a). Infirmity of the relevant report 12. Be that as it may, even if assumingly any argument can be rested on the above amended provision, yet there has to be firm evidence denotative, qua only after a valid demarcation being held, of the relevant site, inasmuch as, only after all the co-abadi owners participating thereins, rather the Deputy Director concerned, making a report that the relevant site, was being used for a common purpose by the villagers, inasmuch as, thereons the entire village community was dumping its manure. However, a reading of the report of the Deputy Director concerned, as became relied upon, by the Appellate Authority concerned, does not reveal, that the site inspection as became conducted of the relevant site, by the revenue officer concerned, became preceded by any valid demarcation thereof being conducted, inasmuch as, the revenue officer concerned, ensuring the participation in the relevant demarcation proceedings, rather of all the stake holders concerned. Therefore, the unilaterally drawn inspection report, as became relied upon by the Deputy Director concerned, and, latter by the Appellate Authority concerned, is ridden with entrenched vices, of its breaching the rules of natural justice, and, resultantly, it looses its tenacity. 13. Therefore, the unilaterally drawn inspection report, as became relied upon by the Deputy Director concerned, and, latter by the Appellate Authority concerned, is ridden with entrenched vices, of its breaching the rules of natural justice, and, resultantly, it looses its tenacity. 13. Nonetheless, even if assuming that the said inspection report has some tenacity, yet it was extremely important for the revenue officer concerned, to collect evidence that the purported manure pit, rather continuously, and, for a long stretch of time, hence became used not only by the co-abadi owners, but by also the entire village community, and, that the such prolonged user of the relevant site, by all the co-abadi owners, and, also by the village community concerned, did estop, the respondents to resist, the persons concerned, to use it for the relevant purpose, given theirs hence waiving, and, abandoning their exclusive right qua its user. However, the evidence (supra) is completely amiss. Therefore, no persons, other than the petitioner, had any right to stake any lawful claim to the land or vacant plot, if any, existing in the abadi deh, but subject to their valid entitlement thereto, and, without prejudice to the rights thereons of the co-abadi owners. Legal Principle 14. The rule relating to qua for no meteing of a pointed denial by the litigant concerned to an averment in the suit relating to the suit land falling to the ownership, and, possession thereofs, of the plaintiff, thus creating an estoppel through admission against the respondent, becomes whittled down, if, otherwise the apposite statutory provisions ,do not confer any such ownership or possessory rights rather upon the plaintiff. Final order 15. The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court finds merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to allow it. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.5.2010 (Annexure P-7), and, dated 21.8.2015 (Annexure P-8), are quashed, and, set aside.