Mr. Surya Kant, J.: (Oral) - The controversy in this case is whether the suit land is shamlat deh within the definition of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 and consequently vests in the Gram Panchayat – respondent No.2 or it stands excluded from shamlat deh in view of Section 2(g)(viii) for the reason that it was allegedly in individual cultivating possession of the petitioner or his forefathers on or before 26.01.1950?

2. The Collector as well as the Appellate Authority under the Act have answered it against the petitioner.

3. It may be mentioned here that earlier this Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication of the controversy and also to examine the correctness of original jamabandi for the year 1944-45. This Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e. CWP No.11306 of 2003 (Gram Panchayat Chachowal, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar vs. The Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) partly allowed on 27.09.2012 held as follows:-

“The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority, in our considered opinion, is palpably incorrect. The entry in the relevant jamabandi for the year 1944-45, that one Mehru is in possession and as the land is “Barani”, it would not automatically exclude it from “Shamilat Deh”. The respondents have not adduced any evidence on record that Mehru was a co-sharer, in “Shamilat Deh” and if so to what extent. The extent of share holding is an important factor for proving exclusion of land from “Shamilat Deh” in terms of Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act. This apart, the private respondents have failed to prove payment of land revenue. The jamabandi produced by private respondents, appears to have been tampered with. At this stage, we would like to point out that the original entry is retained by the Patwari and is referred to as the “Parat Patwar”. A copy is forwarded to the office of Collector and is called the “Parat Sarkar”. The “Parat Patwar” and “Parat Sarkar” should record the same entries but if, there is any material difference between the “Parat Patwar” and the “Parat Sarkar”, the documents would be inherently unreliable. We have perused copies produced by the petitioner and the private respondents and are prima-facie satisfied that copy produced by private respondents “may” have been “interpolated”. A copy of the “Parat Patwar” of jamabandi for the year 1944-45, retained by the patwari, does not contain any entry recording the cultivating possession of Mehru as it records the words “Makbuja Malkan” and describes the land, in dispute, as “Kallar”, whereas the copy obtained from the “Parat Sarkar” records “Mehru” in possession as a co-sharer and the land as “Barani”. The private respondents are unable to explain this discrepancy. It would be necessary to order an enquiry into the matter. It would also be necessary to point out that in jamabandies prepared after 1944-45, Mehru and after Mehru, the private respondents are recorded as “tenants”. The Appellate Authority failed to discern that a “tenant” cannot take benefit of Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act, which is only available to proprietors”.

4. In purported compliance of the above reproduced order the appellate authority has gone into the correctness of the translated version of the jamabandi for the year 1944-45 as well as 1953-54 and has vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2015 concluded as follows:-

“After hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the record I have come to this conclusion that Jamabandis for the year 1944-45 and 1953-54 (Parat Sarkar) whose certified copies are Exhibit A-6 and A-8 annexed by the Appellant to prove his claim, in that entry in the column of cultivation has been cut from Makbuja Malkan and has been made to Makbuja Mehru s/o Malooka shareholder and by cutting in some numbers in the description of kind of land, i.e. land from Gair Mumkin is changed to Barani. The appellant has tampered with the record and by submitting the same