RAJIVE BHALLA, J.

By way of this order, we shall dispose of CWP Nos.7961 of 2008 and 2800 of 2010, as they involve adjudication of common questions of fact and law. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.7961 of 2008.

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated 30.06.2006, 14.08.2007 and 07.04.2008, passed by the Collector, Panchkula, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively.

The dispute, in the present case, is whether the land, in dispute, vests in the Gram Panchayat or in the petitioners. The petitioners have based their plea of ownership primarily on an argument that as the land was Shamilat Patti and is not used according to the revenue record for common purposes of the village, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that jamabandies for the years 1905-1909, record the ownership of Shamilat Taraf and Patti. The column of cultivation, records the possession of various proprietors. The Sharat Wazib-ul-arj, for the years 1905-1909, records that proprietors shall be responsible for management and control of “Shamilat Deh” and that land in village Bitna is subject to river action, by river Kaushalya. It is further submitted that as jamabandies for the years 1945-46 and 1953-54, record that the land is “Shamlat Deh Hassab Hissa Mundarja Paimana Hakiat”, in possession of Makbuja Malkan, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that the land, in dispute, was not reserved during consolidation for any common purpose and as it was Shamilat Bachat, in possession of the petitioners it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat whether under Section 3 of the Pepsu Village Common Lands Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act') or under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act').

Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Kalka, has erred in entering mutation in the name of the Nagar Sabha, Bitna, on the basis of sub-section (6) of Section 2 (g) of the 1961 Act, which provides that land created during consolidation shall henceforth be included in Shamilat Deh. The petitioners, therefore, filed CWP No.18744 of 1998, challenging the vires of Act No.9 but the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file a petition under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act, which was dismissed without considering the revenue record or that the land is Shamilat Patti, and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The appeal and the revision have also been dismissed summarily without considering the revenue record, the provisions of the 1954 Act,the 1961 Act, orders passed during consolidation, provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidation Act') and that the land was never reserved for any common purpose.

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that the land, in dispute, is not Shamilat Patti as it is clearly recorded as “Shamlat Deh Hassab Hissa Mundarja Paimana Hakiat”, in jamabandies for the years 1945-46 and 1953-54, and, therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat under Section 3 of the 1954 Act. It is further argued that the petitioners' plea that the land was in cultivating possession of the land owners is belied as entries in these jamabandies do not record the cultivating possession of any proprietor much less the petitioners. The argument that the land, in dispute, was not reserved for any common purpose during consolidation, is incorrect as Shamilat Deh vests in a Gram Panchayat under the 1954 Act and the 1961 Act and not under the Consolidation Act. The plea that the land, in dispute, was not reserved for any common purpose, disregards the fact that the land is Shamilat Deh i.