JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since both the above writ petitions arise from common verdicts, as made by the competent authorities below, hence both the petitions (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons. 2. Through the instant writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the validity of the makings of Annexure P-1 and of Annexure P-2, as became respectively drawn by the learned Collector concerned, and, by the learned Appellate Authority concerned, whereby respectively the petition constituted by the Gram Panchayat concerned, bearing case No. 58/Pathankot of 3.6.2015, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act of 1973'), became decreed, and, thereafter the appeal constituted theregainst, by the aggrieved therefrom, also became dismissed. 3. Admittedly, the jamabandi, as relates to the writ lands, does vividly in its column of ownership, describes the owner, as jumla mushtarka malkan wa digar hak darah hasab rasad rakba, and, in the column of possession thereof, the petitioners are mentioned, as gair dakhlikar or as unauthorized occupants thereons. 4. The makings of the above entries in the column of the jamabandi, as relates to the petition lands, were thus by the consolidation officer concerned, rather during the course of his holding the consolidation operations in the mohal concerned. The makings of the said entries, do prima facie carry a rebuttable presumption of truth, and, unless the said rebuttable presumption of truth, attaching to the said entries (supra), became rebutted or dislodged, thus through adduction of cogent evidence, thereby the said presumption of truth, thus would acquire an aura of conclusivity. A perusal of the evidence on record reveals, that no evidence either cogent or sound, became adduced by the petitioners, rather to rebut the efficacy of the above entries, thereby the presumption of truth attaching to the entries (supra), when thus remain undislodged, thereby the said entries acquire an aura of conclusivity. 5. The effect of the makings of the above conclusion, is that, when the jumla mushtarka malkan wa digar hak darah hasab rasad rakba, is entered in the revenue records, as, the owner of the petition lands, and/or when the import of the said entry, is that, the petition lands are meant for the enjoyment of the entire village proprietary body. The effect of the makings of the above conclusion, is that, when the jumla mushtarka malkan wa digar hak darah hasab rasad rakba, is entered in the revenue records, as, the owner of the petition lands, and/or when the import of the said entry, is that, the petition lands are meant for the enjoyment of the entire village proprietary body. Thus, when the petition land(s), as held in a catena of judgments, as, pronounced by this Court, thus becomes a "public premises", there bys the making of a petition under the Act of 1973, at the instance of the Gram Panchayat concerned, was an ably constituted petition. Moreover, the verdicts, as became drawn thereons obviously do not suffer from the vice of theirs becoming made by a jurisdictionally incompetent Court or authority. 6. Since, it has been concluded here in above, that the above entry in the column of possession thus declaring the petitioners to be illegal or unauthorized occupants of the petition lands, thus enjoys an aura of conclusivity. In sequel, when the petitioners are also unable to demonstrate that their possession over the petition lands, thus became derived, from their predecessor(s)-in-interest, and, but was an individual cultivating possession, thus prior to 1950. Resultantly when then, they may have been able to cultivate the benefit of the apposite exclusionary clause, to the definition of shamlat deh land, as becomes carried in Section 2(g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter. "was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January. 1950" 7. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the above, is but naturally, that neither the petitioners can claim the benefit of the above extracted exclusionary clause, nor also the petitioners can claim, that they are holding the petition lands in any lawful capacity. Contrarily when they are evidently unauthorized occupants, and/or are in illegal possession of the petition lands, thereby they are amenable to become evicted therefrom. 8. Contrarily when they are evidently unauthorized occupants, and/or are in illegal possession of the petition lands, thereby they are amenable to become evicted therefrom. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that neither the petition lands became reserved for the common purposes of the village nor they have been ever used for the common purpose of the village, and, further that the Gram Panchayat concerned, has failed to place on record any document to that effect. Therefore, he contends, that the impugned verdict requires being quashed and set aside. 9. However, even if there may have been some omission on the part of the petitioners to in the eviction petition (supra), thus produce evidence, thus reflecting that the petition lands, became used for the village common purpose, yet the above omission does not unsettle nor unrest the above conclusion, qua the petitioners being in illegal or unauthorized possession of the petition lands. Conspicuously when an unrebutted entry in respect of the above factum is carried in the revenue records. Final order 10. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in both the petitions, and, is constrained to dismiss them. Consequently, both the petitions are dismissed. The impugned orders are maintained, and, affirmed. 11. No order as to costs. 12. The pending application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.