Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- Petitioners have laid challenge to an order dated 10.02.2009 dismissing their title suit filed under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1962 (in short ‘the Act’). They have also challenged order dated 26.08.2009 (Annexure P-9) dismissing their appeal. Further challenge has been laid to an order dated 25.08.2010 vide which, their revision petition was dismissed.

2. Petitioners have filed above said suit in a representative capacity stating that they, alongwith others, are the right holders in vast track of land which was shown in the revenue record under the ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Hissa Mandarja Paimana Hakiyat. It was their case that the above said land was not reserved for any common purpose and is in cultivating possession of the right holders.

3. To note down their exact claim, it is necessary to reproduce para nos. 3 to 5 of the application filed by them under Section 13-A of the Act which read as under:-

“3. That the suit land is recorded as Shamlat land in village Nada. A settlement took place in the village. A separate khewat was carved out which was kept as Shamlat deh and separate khewat was carved out which was kept as Shamlat deh and was record in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh Hasab Mandarza Paimana Hakiat.” This entry was incorporated in the revenue records in the column of ownership. In the column of cultivation, the land recorded as shamlat deh remained in the cultivation possession of the proprietors as per their share. It is further submitted that the said khewat was assessed to the land revenue and individual proprietors were regularly paying land revenue as per the land in their possession. The revenue entries are clearly showing the possession of the proprietors since then to till date without payment of any rent except the land revenue as stated above. Thus the land which was/is recorded as Shamlat Deh and was assessed to land revenue has been in the individual cultivation possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh since more than 50 years before 26-01-1950.

4. That thus from the revenue record, it is clear that the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs and other proprietors are in cultivating possession of the land in question for more than 12 years prior to 26-01-1950. Therefore, by virtue of section 4(3), (ii) of the Act their rights are protected. Further as per exception clause of section 2(g)(viii) of the Act same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

5. That the aforesaid land after consolidation, remained in possession of the proprietors and the same was not reserved for any common purposes under the Scheme prepared and notified under the provision of East Punjab Consolidation of Holding (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The land in question was never used for any common purposes of the village, therefore, the land in dispute is a Bachat Land and the Gram Panchayat has no right title or interest in the suit property. Thus the management or the control of the land in question never came under defendant the land vest in Gram Panchayat of village Nada per section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961.”

4. It is specifically stated that land do not vest in the Gram Panchayat in view of provision of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act and also in terms of Exception Clause (viii) of Section 2(g) of the Act.

5. The case was contested by the Gram Panchayat. It was specifically stated in the reply that the land in dispute is not under cultivation and in the revenue record, it was shown in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and shown under Gair Mumkin Nadi, Choe, Banjar Qadim etc. Large number of documents were produced at the time when evidence of both the parties was recorded. The Collector, vide order dated 10.02.2009, after discussing evidence on record, came to a conclusion that none of the petitioners have proved that they were in individ