Alok Singh, J.:- In all the petitions, property in question is recorded either as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat” or as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Hisas Mundarja Shijra Nasab”. In all the petitions, properties in question stood vested in Panchayats as per Section 3 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (hereinafter called as ‘1953 Act’) and were mutated in favour of Panchayat in the year 1957. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the 1961 Act’) came into force w.e.f. 1961 repealing 1953 Act with saving clause as provided under Section 16 of the 1961 Act. Thereafter, plaintiffs have filed different petitions under Section 11 of the 1961 Act seeking declaration that plaintiffs be declared owners of the land and for deleting the name of Panchayat as owner from the revenue record. In some petitions filed by plaintiffs, learned Commissioners have held that since property was recorded as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat” in jamabandi for the year 1948-49 and Panchayat could not prove that suit land was kept reserved for common purposes of the village, therefore, proprietors thereof are the owners of the property and property shall not vest in the Panchayat. Feeling aggrieved, Gram Panchayats have filed CWP Nos.15937, 17871, 17565, 17943 and 17944 of 2006. However, in rest of the petitions it has been held by the authorities below that since property was recorded as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat”, therefore, it rightly stood vested in the Panchayat. It has further been held that plaintiffs have failed to bring their cases under the exemption clauses of shamlat deh by proving that property was under their cultivation and they have got their shares divided on or before 26.1.1950, therefore, plaintiffs cannot be held to be owners of the property. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed CWP Nos.10911 of 2008, 12992 of 2011, 4734, 4738, 4739, 4732, 4733, 4735, 4736, 4737, 8322 of 2010, 16107 of 2006 and 17146 of 2008.

2. Mr. S.D. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, as well as Mr. Arun Jain, learned Senior Advocate, have vehemently argued that land in question stood vested in favour of Panchayat in view of Section 3 of 1953 Act; land which has been excluded from shamlat deh as provided in Clause (iii) and (viii) of Section 2(g), shall be reverted in persons or persons in whom they were vested prior to commencement of shamlat law and the Panchayat shall deliver possession of such land to such person or persons in view of Section 3(2) of 1961 Act. It has further been argued that although entire land is recorded as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Hisas Mundarja Shijra Nasab” or “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat” however, only that portion shall remain vested in Panchayat which is declared or reserved for common purposes by the consolidation authorities and rest of the land shall be revested in the proprietors by operation of Section 3(2) of the 1961 Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have further contended that in the revenue record prior to 1950 in the column of cultivation entry is ‘Makbuja Malkan’ which means in the possession of owner of the property; since petitioners are the owners, therefore, they were in possession prior to 1950, hence, as per exclusion clauses i.e. (iii) and (viii) of Section 2(g) petitioners are the owners and property should be revested in them.

3. Mr. V.S. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat as well as Mr. Jaswinder Singh learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, have vehemently argued that entire land of shamlat deh which stood vested in the Panchayat in view of Section 3 of 1953 Act shall not automatically revert to the proprietors in view of Section 3 (2) of 1961 Act. They have further contended that from the careful reading of Section 3(2) and Section 4 of 1961 Act, the only conclusion would be that only such land would be reverted to the proprietors which is e