JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. Gram Panchayat Village Sibbo Chack, Block and Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, through its Sarpanch, instituted case No.3 of 2017, before the learned Collector concerned. The case (supra) was cast under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961'), against the present petitioners, respondents therein, thus seeking for their eviction from the petition land(s). Through an order made thereon, on 25.01.2018 (Annexure P-3), the learned Collector concerned decreed the said eviction petition. The aggrieved therefrom, instituted thereagainst, an appeal bearing No.1631 of 2018, before the competent appellate authority concerned, who, through a decision made thereon, on 28.06.2019 (Annexure P-4), after concurring with the verdict, as became earlier made by the learned Collector concerned (Annexure P-3), thus proceeded to dismiss the above statutory appeal. The above concurrently made decisions against the petitioners, by both the statutory authorities below, have led them to institute thereagainst, the instant writ petition before this Court. 2. Admittedly, in the ownership column of the Jamabandi, as comprised in Annexure P-7, and, relating to the petition land(s), there occurs an entry of "Makbuja Abadi Deh". Therefore, though in respect of the above entry existing in the ownership column of the Jamabandi (supra), makes the said entry, in terms of Section 2(g)(1) of the Act of 1961, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter, thus to become excluded from the definition of "Shamlat Deh". Though also the eviction petition, as laid before the learned Collector concerned, when relates to an order of eviction being made against the respondents concerned, petitioners herein, from an open space within the "abadi deh", though was not a well laid motion before the authorities contemplated in the Act of 1961. "Section 2(g) "Shamilat deh" includes :- (1) lands described in the revenue records as Shamlat deh excluding abadi deh;" 3. However, during the pendency of the instant writ petition before this Court, through Punjab Act No.16 of 2021, an insertion has occurred in Section 2(g) of the Act of 1961, thus of an apposite inclusionary clause, whereby open spaces in the "abadi deh" are brought within the domain of the definition of "shamlat deh". The relevant provisions of the said inserted inclusionary clause, through, the Act (supra), are extracted hereinafter. "[(4a) vacant land or plot situated in abadi deh or gorah deh not owned by any person; and]" 4. The relevant provisions of the said inserted inclusionary clause, through, the Act (supra), are extracted hereinafter. "[(4a) vacant land or plot situated in abadi deh or gorah deh not owned by any person; and]" 4. Resultantly, when the instant petition, is a continuation, of the original suit of the petitioners, therefore the said insertion of an apposite inclusionary clause, whereby open spaces within the "abadi deh" are brought within the definition of "shamlat deh", thereby obviously make the Panchayat deh, to be the owner of such open spaces, but within "abadi deh". Resultantly, in the wake of the said amendment, this Court can thus deem it fit, to apply to the disputed open spaces within the "abadi deh" land, which become purportedly encroached or occupied by the petitioners, rather the above inserted amendment, whereby, clause 2(g) (6) became inserted in the Act of 1961, thereby bringing within the realm of definition of "shamlat deh", even open spaces existing within "abadi deh". 5. Be that as it may, the petitioners could well contest the said petition, but on the limited premise, that the said open space was adjoining to their abadi, and, that it was as such used as a courtyard or a verandah to their abadi. The said claim was also required to be asserted on the plank, that since times immemorial, the said open space was thus used as such. Moreover, obviously for the said open space, being construable to be as such used as a courtyard or a verandah, by the petitioners herein, thus required it being adjunct or adjoining to their abadi but occuring within the "abadi deh". 6. However, though an assertion is made by the petitioners, that since times immemorial, the said open space was used for the relevant purpose, and/or, it was used as such prior to 1950. However, the gravity of the above pleading becomes eclipsed, thus in the wake of respondents No.1 and 2, in their written statement to the petition (supra), pleading that they, through a purchase being made in the year 2013, from the vendor concerned, rather became co-abadi owners over "abadi deh" land. However, the gravity of the above pleading becomes eclipsed, thus in the wake of respondents No.1 and 2, in their written statement to the petition (supra), pleading that they, through a purchase being made in the year 2013, from the vendor concerned, rather became co-abadi owners over "abadi deh" land. Resultantly, they cannot argue, that since times immemorial, either their abadi, was but existing prior to 1950, nor they can argue that the disputed open spaces but within the "abadi deh" land, which but for reason (supra) is "shamlat deh", whereons the Gram Panchayat has ownership, rather is prior to 1950, through their predecessors-in-interest, coming to their possession, and nor that the said disputed open space, being used as a courtyard or a verandah to their abadi. 7. Moreover, the disputed open space, is reflected in the site plan, which became considered by both the competent authorities below, in theirs drawing conclusions against the petitioners herein, whereins, reflections occur, that the said disputed open space, rather is claimed by the Gram Panchayat, to be used as a Village Chowk, besides is located much afar from the abadi of the petitioners herein. Therefore, over the said remote place, or, a Chowk from the abadi of the petitioners, it cannot permissibly be argued, that the said Chowk was ever used as a courtyard or as a verandah by the petitioners, to their abadis, as it obviously is not appurtenant thereto, nor is adjoining thereto, rather is reiteratedly much afar therefrom. Final Order 8. In aftermath, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed. The impugned orders are affirmed and maintained. 9. No order as to costs.