The interpretation of the Act's provisions, emphasizing individual cultivating possession, non-use for common purposes, and exclusion clauses, influenced the court's decision in favor of the petitioner.

1. Vide this common order, we propose to decide aforesaid six writ petitions as common question of law is involved in these cases. The facts are taken from CWP No. 7860 of 2003.

2. Petitioner assails the order dated 8.1.2002 (Annexure P- 7) passed by Collector, Panipat, whereby the appeal of the respondent-Gram Panchayat was accepted as well as the order dated 14.11.2002 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Commissioner, Rohak Division, Rohtak, whereby his revision was dismissed thereby maintaining the order dated 8.1.2002.

3. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner were in cultivating possession of land comprised in Khewat No.105, Khatauni No. 150/145, Rectangle No.10, Killa No.2, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and Rectangle No. 53 killa No.9/2 situated in revenue estate of village Joshi Tehsil and District Panipat according to jamabandi for the year 1981-82.

4. Petitioner claimed that the aforesaid land had been in cultivating possession of his predecessors-in-interest much before the year 1937-38. According to revenue record viz. jamabandi for the year 1941-42, the predecessor-in-interest, namely, Ramanand was shown to be in possession of the land as hissedar. The land was recorded as 'shamlat deh hasab rasad khewat'. Possession of Ramanand was shown to be hissedar and the kind and nature of the land was depicted in the relevant column as 'Badami Meharwal, Wahi, Badami Majrooaa' etc. (terms related to cultivable nature of land).

5. According to shajra nasab (pedigree tree) of the village, Ramanand was shown as grandfather of the petitioner. In the subsequent jamabandis for the year 1954-55 and 1961-62, the petitioner was shown to be in possession in the capacity of hissedar. The land was recorded to be 'shamlat deh hasab rasab khewat' (joint land according to the shares in the land). The column of cultivation was in the name of the petitioner with the entry "khudkhast (self cultivation) and Maqbuza (occupied land) Karma s/o Ghasi (hissedar)". The kind of land was shown to be 'banjar kadami thoor' (old waste land, not cultivated for the last more than eight harvests).

6. Petitioner also alleged that at the time of consolidation the old khasra numbers were replaced by new khasra numbers and his possession was recorded and upheld by the consolidation authorities. The petitioner filed petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking declaration of his title in the aforesaid land. Petitioner claimed that his possession through his predecessors-in-interest has been recorded since more than 50-60 years in the revenue record and the land does not vest under Section 2 (g) of the Act in panchayat as 'shamlat deh'. The land was never used for any common purpose of the village community. The possession of the petitioner through his predecessors-in-interest was continuous, open, hostile and was more than 12 years at the time of commencement of the Act. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat claimed that the land stood vested in panchayat as 'shamlat deh' with the aid of Section 2 (g) (5) of the Act.

7. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat tried the title suit after following proper procedure. Petitioner got examined Hawa Singh, Halqa Patwari, as PW-1, himself as PW-2 and Daya Singh, Lambardar, as PW-3, besides leading voluminous evidence in the form of Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. On the other hand, respondent-Gram Panchayat got examined Roshan Lal, Panch, as RW-1, Prem Singh, Gram Secretary, as RW-2 and Dharam Singh, Patwari, as RW-3. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.1999 (Annexure P-6) decreed the suit.

8. Gram Panchayat filed appeal against the aforesaid order before Collector, Panipat, who accepted the same vide order dated 8.1.2002 thereby declaring the land to be shamlat deh, capable of vesting in the Panchayat.

9. Petitioner remained unsuccessful in revision before the Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide order dated 14.11.2002. That is how the or