The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 2(g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act in the context of land disputes and the requirement to prove cultivating possession and share in the shamlat deh.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) - This petition is directed against the order dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure P-ll).

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Punjab) (for short, "the Act") was filed by the Gram Panchayat against the petitioner for seeking his eviction from the land measuring 78 kanals 5 marlas. At the same time, the petitioner had also filed a suit under Section 11 of the Act for declaring himself as owner of the land measuring 78 kanals 5 marlas. Both the petitions were clubbed together and the application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act was dismissed whereas the suit filed by the petitioner was decided in his favour vide order dated 28.06.1982. As a result, two appeals were filed by the Gram Panchayat against the same order vide which application under Section 7 of the Act was dismissed and suit filed under Section 11 was allowed. The appeals were also dismissed on 31.10.1986. The Gram Panchayat challenged the orders dated 26.06.1982 and 31.10.1986 by way of a writ petition No.449 of 1987 which was allowed on 30.01.2013 by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the power of the Commissioner under the Act for deciding the appeal again. The said order dated 30.01.2013 reads as under:

"The Gram Panchayat of Village Nalini prays for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 26.06.1982 (Annexure P-4) and 31.10.1986 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Divisional Deputy Director-cum-Collector, Rural Development and Panchayats, Patiala and the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of 'Commissioner'), respectively.

Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be allowed and the matter may be remitted to the Appellate authority for adjudication afresh as the Collector and the Appellate Authority, have committed an error of law by granting benefit under Section 4(3)(H) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act), whereas the case as discernible from pleadings and the evidence, on record, should have been decided in the light of Section 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act.

In view of the agreement between counsel for the parties, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 31.10.1986, passed by the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the power of Commissioner under the 1961 Act, for adjudication of the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat, afresh and in accordance with law within three months from the parties putting in appearance before him on 11.03.2013."

3. After the remand, the appeal of the Gram Panchayat was allowed by the Commissioner on 31.05.2013, holding that the petitioner has been recorded as Gair Marusi in the jamabandis for the years 1943-44, 1947-48 and 1951-52 whereas the land is owned by Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat.

4. At the time of notice of motion issued on 11.09.2014, the following order was passed by this Court:

"It is specifically contended that in none of the revenue entries prior to 1950, Rakha Singh son of Jhagru Singh is recorded as gair marusi and the revenue record in this regard has been misread by the Commissioner while recording findings at Page 88-89 of the paperbook.

Notice of motion.

On our asking, Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2. Requisite number of copies of the petition be handed over to him during the course of the day.

Let respondent Nos.3 to 7 be served through dasti notice for 13.10.2014.

Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo.

The Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib is directed to ensure that the original revenue record along with