The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, particularly regarding the criteria for exclusion of land from 'Shamilat Deh' under Section 2(g)(viii).

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.9.1991 (Annexure P3) passed by respondent No.1 whereby the application of the Gram Panchayat filed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was allowed and the Gram Panchayat had been held to be the owner of the property.

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioners were in possession as owners of the land comprised in khewat khatauni No. 65/103 khasra No. 36(65) situated within the revenue estate of village Barkatpur, Tehsil and District Patiala before 26.1.1950. The Gram Panchayat respondent No.2 while claiming its right over the land in dispute on the basis of jamabandi for the year 196364 filed an application under Section 7 of the Act before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala. According to the jamabandi, the name of the Gram Panchayat was shown in the column of ownership. Shri Chuhar Singh, predecessor in interest of the petitioners was shown in possession of the land as cosharer and owner. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 22.2.1966 rejected the said application holding that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was in possession of the land before 26.1.1950 and that order had become final. On the basis of the said order, mutation No. 171 was sanctioned on 22.3.1966 and the name of the Gram Panchayat was removed from the column of the ownership of jamabandi. According to jamabandi for the year 196364, Shri Chuhar Singh, predecessor I ninterest was in possession of the land as cosharer/coowner without payment of any rent. His possession was found to be before 26.1.1950 and therefore, the name of the Gram Panchayat was excluded from the column of ownership. The Gram Panchayat did not file any appeal against the mutation order or against the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Said Chuhar Singh remained in possession as cosharer/coowner till his death and thereafter the petitioners were in possession of the land as owners. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 11 of the Act on 21.1.1981. The said application was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 23.11.1982 (Annexure P1) holding the petitioners to be the owners of the land. Feeling aggrieved, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the

Commissioner who remanded the case to the Collector. After remand, the Collector vide order dated 5.6.1987 (Annexure P2) rejected the application. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat took the matter in appeal before respondent No.1 who vide order dated 11.9.1991 (Annexure P3) allowed the appeal and declared the Gram Panchayat as owner of the land in dispute. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Respondent No.1 while hearing the appeal concluded that the land comprising in khewat khatauni No. 65/103 khasra No. 36(65) was owned by the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners were in unauthorized possession over it. The claim of the Gram Panchayat was controverted by the petitioners, however, the case was not accepted. Respondent No.1 while allowing the appeal had recorded as under:

“According to Jamabandis 195152, 195859 and 197980 the land is described as Shamilat Deh and the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land according to Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961. The ownership of the Gram Panchayat is challenged by the present respondents on the basis of their old possession. The lower court also dismissed the suit of the Gram Panchayat on the basis that the possession of the present respondents was proved to be very old. The exceptions under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1961 are very clear and accordingly amongst other con