JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

The petitioners herein instituted, on 06.02.2012, a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to the 'Act of 1961') before the learned Collector concerned. In the said petition, the Gram Panchayat Sarari, Tehsil and District Rupnagar, became impleaded as respondent. Through a decision drawn thereon, on 26.12.2012 (Annexure P2), the learned Collector concerned, after making a studied perusal of the column of possession, as borne in the Jamabandi, relating to the disputed land(s), and, appertaining to the year 1947- 1948, but displaying therein, that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners became recorded therein, to be in cultivating possession, thus proceeded to grant the asked for declaratory decree to the petitioners.

2. The drawing of Annexure P-2 caused grievance to the Gram Panchayat concerned, and thus led it to make an appeal bearing No.35/2013, before the competent appellate authority concerned, who through drawing Annexure P-4, on 06.02.2019, after accepting the above statutory appeal, proceeded to annul Annexure P-2.

3. The drawing of Annexure P-4 caused grievance to the respondents in the said appeal, and, thus led them to institute theregainst, the instant writ petition before this Court.

For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court does not accept the instant writ petition challenging Annexure P-4

4. The reason for drawing the above conclusion, becomes rested upon the factum, that though Annexure P-5, which is the Jamabandi relating to the disputed land(s), and, appertains to the years 1945-1948, thus is made prior to 1950, and, though in its column of ownership, it records the name of Panchayat Deh, and, though also in the column of possession thereof, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, one Lachhman Singh, is depicted therein, but as custodian of all the co-cultivators, to thus hold cultivating possession of the disputed land(s). However, the learned Collector concerned appears to, on the basis of the cultivating possession of the disputed land(s), by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, and, also on the basis of such cultivating possession, thus evidently being prior to 1950. Resultantly thereupon he appears to, on the basis of the apposite savings clause, as carried in Section 2 (g)(viii) of the Act of 1961, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter, thus assign the declaratory decree to the petitioners. However, the application of the said savings clause to the above made depictions, in the Jamabandi, is a complete misapplication thereto(s) of the apposite savings clause.

"2. Definition- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.

XX XX XX

(g) "Shamilat deh" includes

XX XX XX

(viii) was Shamilat deh was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of coshares not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950, or

XX XX XX"

5. The reason for forming the above inference stems, from the factum, that Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1961 relates to the definition of "shamlat deh", and, also carries thereins, thus the relevant inclusionary clauses to the statutory definition of "shamlat deh" lands, besides carries the apposite exclusionary clauses, thus making such excluded lands, from theirs falling within the ambit of "shamlat deh" lands. The relevance of the above statutory definition assigned to "shamlat deh" lands, as occurring in the Act of 1961, is of extreme importance, as the said definition is engrafted, but on t