Bachat land vests with the proprietors and not with the Gram Panchayat, and there is a need for redistribution of Bachat land amongst the proprietors according to their shares to curb unnecessary litigation and ensure the common good and benefit of the proprietors.

V.K.BALI, J.

1. In a bunch of 163 petitions which came to be disposed of by a common judgment, the learned single Judge upheld the vires of Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and besides some other, dismissed Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 18016, 18018 and 18049 of 1991 on merits as well. Petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions referred to above, being not satisfied have filed the present Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 868, 884 and 869 of 1992 under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act and same as dealt with by the learned single Judge need be disposed of by a common order.

2. The common question that needs adjudication in all these appeals is as to whether Bachat land i.e. land found surplus after putting the land of the proprietors as contributed by them according to their share for the common purposes, vests with Gram Panchayat or continues to be owned by the proprietors of the village. Connected with the question aforesaid is also the question as to whether land which is shown in the revenue records as Bachat land, by making a simple mutation in favour of Gram Panchayat, there being no basis established for such a change, is it mutation that shall prevail in holding as to with whom the land vests or that such a change has to be completely ignored?

3. Brief facts of the case reveal that Gram Panchayat, Jandoke, Tehsil Muktsar, Distt. Faridkot filed an application for eviction of the petitioners in each case by styling them as trespassers on the land owned by Gram Panchayat. Upon notice, petitioners filed written statements challenging the authority of Sarpanch to file the application and also pleaded that they were owners in possession of the land in question and the land was Bachat land, owners whereof were the proprietors of the village according to their shares. The Collector vide his order dated 20th of October, 1986 ordered eviction of the petitioners constraining them to file an appeal before the learned Commissioner who vide his order dated 18th November, 1987 remanded the case to the Collector to issue fresh notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). After complying with the directions contained in the remand order, the matter was once again determined against the petitioners vide order dated 15th of May, 1989. They were ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute and further ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which if not paid was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The order passed by the Collector dated 15th of May, 1989 was upheld by the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 6th of August, 1991. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners filed three writ petitions, referred to above, with the result already indicated in the opening part of the judgment. In view of the questions that have been framed for adjudication as referred to above, which emanate from the finding of the learned single Judge that "it has been found as a fact that initially the land had been entered in the name of Jumla Malkan but later on mutation was entered in favour of Gram Panchayat which was duly sanctioned" and further that, "any land which is left for common purposes of the village is also to be under the general superintendence and management of the Gram Panchayat", there is no need to give further details of the case.

4. Mr. Chopra, learned Counsel representing the appellants vehemently contends that the land found Bachat (surplus) after utilising it for common purposes, cannot possibly vest with the Gram Panchayat and this precise question is not res integra having been so held by a string of judicial precedents of Supreme Court and this Court.

5. Before we may, however, notice the judicial precedents cited during the course of arguments, it would be relevant to mention in brief as to what is Bachat or surplus land. It is common case of the parties that in a scheme that is frame