JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Certain private individuals instituted File No.DDDP (II) Ganaur Patiala-7 on 08.03.2010 before the Collector concerned. The said case was instituted under the provisions of Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). In the said title suit, the petitioners claimed that the respondents had raised construction upon a gair mumkin pond, which was as such reserved for the benefit of the entire village proprietary body rather in the consolidation scheme, as became prepared by the Consolidation Officer concerned.

2. Learned Collector-Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, Patiala vide its order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure P.15) proceeded to allow the petition filed by the private respondents herein, whereby the Gram Panchayat became declared as owner of the land in dispute.

3. The reason as became assigned therein, was based upon the spot inspection reports made by the Local Commissioner on 10.5.2011, but revealing that the respondents in the case (supra), had made construction upon the gair mumkin pond, whereas, the land of said gair mumkin pond, rather was reserved for the benefit of the entire village proprietary body, thus was not amenable for any construction over it, becoming raised by the members of the village proprietary body.

4. The respondents-petitioners herein feeling aggrieved from Annexure P.15, instituted statutory appeal bearing No.401 of 2011 (Annexure P.20), before the competent Appellate Authority concerned. However, the said statutory appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2015 (P.20) whereby the decision passed by the Collector has been upheld. The above concurrently made verdicts by both the statutory Authorities below, bring grievance to the petitioners and thus, leads them to institute thereagainst the present petition.

5. Without commenting upon the validity of the sale deed, which became executed inter se predecessor in interest of the present petitioners with their vendors concerned, the most relevant fact upon which becomes hinged, thus the concurrently made verdicts against the petitioners herein, rather is the spot inspection report (P.10), as made of the site concerned, by the BDPO, as also by the Junior Engineer concerned.

6. For the reasons to be assigned thereafter, the reliance as made on the spot inspection report by the Authorities below, whereby they concluded that the construction, if any as made by the present petitioners, became thus made on the gair mumkin pond, rather is an extremely frail reliance thereon. The primary reason for making such a conclusion but stems from the factum, that only if the spot inspection report, thus was drawn by a competent revenue Officer concerned, thereupon the said spot inspection (supra) would have an aura of validity.

7. Since apparently the spot inspection report is not made by the revenue Officer concerned, but is made by the Junior Engineer of the Block Development concerned, who is not an authorised revenue officer nor is conversant with all the relevant revenue record, thus, to make a valid spot inspection. As such, his report was not a valid substitute for makings of demarcation thus, by an empowered revenue Officer concerned.

8. Before proceeding further, it is an apt to reproduce Section 2 (g)4) of the Act, which reads as under:

2. Definitions.- (a) to (f) xxxx xxxxx

(g) "shamilat deh" includes: (1) to (3) xxxx xxxx

(4) lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village, community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, school, drinking wells, or ponds within abadi deh or