RAJIVE BHALLA, J

CM No.4637 of 2012 in CWP No.8272 of 2003 and CM No.4640 of 2012 in CWP No.17386 of 2003 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.4638 of 2012 in CWP No.8272 of 2003 and CM No.4641 of 2012 in CWP No.17386 of 2003 Prayer in this application is to implead the legal representatives of Paltu Ram, proforma respondent No.16, in CWP No.8272 of 2003 and petitioner in CWP No.17386 of 2003, who is stated to have passed away on 11.07.2009.

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record. CWP No.8272 of 2003 By way of this order, we shall dispose of CWP Nos.8272 and 17386 of 2003 as they involve adjudication of similar questions of fact and law.

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated 16.03.1999, 11.03.2002, 14.02.2003 and 12.05.2003, (Annexures P-5 to P-8), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, the Collector, Panipat, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh, respectively, rejecting their plea, raised under Section 13-B (now Section 13-A) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act') as applicable to the State of Haryana, that the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. CWP No.17386 of 2003

The petitioner, has filed the writ petition without filing an application under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act, but prays that as a suit was filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.P.C.'), by petitioners in CWP No.8272 of 2003, the Financial Commissioner has erred in dismissing his petition on the ground that he was not a party before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Panipat or the Collector.

Before we proceed to decide the matter, it would be appropriate to narrate facts that are being taken from CWP No.8272 of 2003.

The petitioners, filed an application under Section 13-B (now 13-A) of the 1961 Act' read with Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C., averring that as the land, in dispute, is recorded as the joint ownership of proprietors of Panna Madhu, Panna Gulman, and Panna Rajput in the Shamilat Deh of the village, and is not used, as per revenue record for common purposes, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

The Gram Panchayat opposed this plea and, in turn, pleaded that as the land is described as Shamilat Deh, and used as Charand (a pasture), Johar (a pond) etc., it vests in the Gram Panchayat.

The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Panipat, framed 11 issues, including one additional issue, and after considering the pleadings and the evidence, held that the land, in dispute, vests in proprietors but dismissed the application on certain other grounds including the ground of maintainability. The petitioners and the Gram Panchayat, filed separate appeals. The Collector, Panipat, accepted the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat but dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners, by holding that though the land was originally described as “Shamilat Panna”, but as it was used as charand (pasture) etc., it does not vest in proprietors, i.e., the petitioners. A revision filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, was dismissed on 14.02.2003. A further petition filed before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, met the same fate.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that jamabandies prior to the enactment of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act') and the 1961 Act, clearly record that the land, in dispute, though, Shamilat Deh, is owned by Panna Madhu, Panna Gulman, and Panna Rajput in accordance with their shareholdings. Section 2(g)(3) of the 1961 Act, provides that land, described as tarafs, pannas, pattis and tholas, shall vest in a Gram Panchayat, only, if, it is used as per the revenue record, for common purposes. T