Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - Gram Panchayat of village Mehal Singh Wala prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (exercising the powers of ‘Commissioner’) under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has erred in holding that “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran” is Bachat Land. The land described as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”, is created during consolidation, after applying a pro rata cut on the holdings of proprietors, in accordance with Sections 18 and 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Consolidation Act”) read with Rule 16 (ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the “1949 Rules”) and reserved for the panchayat and for other common purposes. “Bachat”, on the other hand, is land, that is left over after creating “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” and is generally returned to proprietors during consolidation. The use of the expression “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” denotes the ownership of proprietors, but the management and control of a Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that respondent no.3 has not adduced any evidence to prove his ownership or that the land, in dispute, was created after applying a cut on his holding or the holding of his predecessors or that it was not reserved for any common purpose. The impugned order does not refer to any portion of the scheme, the extent of cut, the particulars of land earmarked and reserved for common purposes or left over, thereby clearly proving that respondent no.3 has failed to prove that the land was not earmarked for any common purpose during consolidation. The mere fact that the land may be cultivated or cultivable and is in possession of a person other than the Gram Panchayat, does not raise any inference that the land was not reserved for any common purpose.

3. Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that Madan Lal son of Babu Ram and Smt. Mala wife of Tulsi Ram were owners of the entire land in the village. Madan Lal is the father of respondent no.3, whereas Mala Devi is his maternal grand mother. A cut of 106 Kanals-03 Marlas was applied to their holdings, for creating common land. A perusal of documents prepared during consolidation reveals that this land was utilised for “Gadha Khad” (manure pits) “Hadda Rori”, roads and paths etc. but land measuring 46Kanals-19Marlas was unutilised and is, therefore, recorded as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”, in column no.4 of jamabandi, for the year 1959-60. The quality of land is “Barani” and Nehri, (cultivated land), thereby clearly proving that it was never used or reserved for any common purpose. The entry of “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” was changed to the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, without any notice to respondent no.3, on the basis of a letter issued by the government. The mutation is, therefore, illegal and void. It is further submitted that a perusal of the reply filed by the Gram Panchayat and the statement made by the Sarpanch before the Collector reveals that the Gram Panchayat has failed to prove any right, title or interest in the land in dispute. As per Annexure R-3/6 (exhibited as Ex.P-6), a report prepared by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, reveals that there was no “Shamilat Khewat’ in the village, thereby clearly proving that the land, in dispute, is “bachat” and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. In support of his arguments that the land described as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”, is bachat land and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, counsel for respondent no.3 places reliance upon the following judgments:- Gurjant Singh versus Commissioner, Ferozepur Division 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 437; State of Punjab versus Gurjant Singh and others 2002(2)PLJ 438(SC); Jai Singh versus