The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'Shamlat Deh' under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the significance of continuous possession in determining ownership rights.

JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Tiwari. J. - By placing reliance upon the revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 1890-91 (Annexure P-5), jamabandi for the year 1936-37 (Annexure P-6), and, jamabandi for the year 1940-41 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner claimed to be owner in possession of the land which is recorded as 'Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat' on the ground that the petitioner through his predecessor-in-interest is in possession of the suit land, prior to the year 1950 as share holder. A perusal of the above jamabandis shows that in the column of owner 'Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat' is recorded, and, whereas, in the column of cultivator, Fauza Singh is recorded as Hisedar, and, the nature of the land is recorded as either barani or, and, some as gair mumkin. On the strength of the above documents, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for declaring the petitioner as cosharer to the extent of half share of land measuring 23 kanal 7 marla bearing khasra No.2//18(4-9), 19(3-19), 20(9-2), 22(2-7), 23(3-10), in accordance with Jamabandi for the year 2006-07 situated in the area of village Muggo Sohi, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The petitioner contended that he is in continuous possession over the disputed suit land from past 100 years. One Lal Singh son of Fauza Singh was having three sons, namely, Teja Singh, Tara Singh, and, Karam Singh, who were recorded in the land revenue record as Hisedar in the 'Shamlat Deh'. Bakshish Singh present petitioner is the younger son of Karam Singh. He stated that in the jamabandis for the years 1936-37, and 1940-41, the names of Teja Singh, Tara Singh, and, Karam Singh have been recorded as cultivators, and, from the revenue record, it is clear that his fore-fathers were owners in possession of the suit land in dispute prior to commencement of the Act of 1961.

2. The respondent-Gram Panchayat contested the suit, and, pleaded therein that the land recorded as 'Shamlat Deh' is owned by the Gram Panchayat, and, the petitioner has been recorded as gair marusi. To strengthen its plea, the respondent-Gram Panchayat placed reliance upon the jamabandis for the years 1966-67 to 2006-07 continuously. It was further pleaded that there is no revenue document on record which can connect the suit land with the khasra numbers recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1940-41.

3. After considering the case of both the parties, the learned Collector vide order dated 13.7.2016 dismissed the petition. The petitioner successfully challenged the dismissal order (Supra) by filing statutory appeal before the competent statutory authority. The appeal was accepted, and, the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 4.10.2019 remanded the lis to the learned Collector concerned, to decide the issue afresh after perusing the record, and, by granting full opportunity to the petitioner to establish his claim. After the remand, the petitioner submitted jamabandi for the year 1890-91, and, the Shazara Nisab to establish the pedigree table, and, also to establish that he is in possession of the suit land prior to 1950 in accordance with his share. After considering the entire record, the learned Collector held that the petitioner could not establish any connection with the entry contained in the jamabandi for the year 1890-91, and, the suit land. The petitioner did not place on record any document prior to jamabandi for the year 196667 to prove his continuous possession prior to 26.1.1950 over the land in dispute, whereas, as per the jamabandi for the year 1966-67, and, till 2011-12, the land in dispute falls under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, and, the petitioner has been in possession of the land as gair marusi. The application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.7.2016 Annexure P-15. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged that order by filing statutory appeal before the learned Director-cum-Joint S