JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

One Dalip Singh (since deceased), through his LRs, and, others instituted Case No.44 on 16.04.2003, before the Assistant Collector concerned. In the case (supra), the petitioners impleaded Gram Panchayat Village Saidpur, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat, through its Sarpanch, as respondent No.1, and, also impleaded one Kartar Singh as co-respondent No.2. The case (supra) was assigned the above number, only in pursuance to an order of remand being made, on 25.03.2003, by the learned Collector, Sonepat.

2. Through a decision made, on 25.08.2003 (Annexure P-2), upon case (supra), by the Assistant Collector concerned, thereby the petitioners' claim for a declaratory relief being granted, in respect of the petition Khasra numbers, thus became allowed. The aggrieved therefrom, became led to institute there against, an executive appeal bearing No.7 of 2003, before the learned Collector, Sonepat, who however, through a decision made thereon, on 29.07.2004 (Annexure P-3), allowed the appeal and set aside the decision as carried in Annexure P-2. Thereafter, the petitioners instituted case No.7/DC before the learned Collector, Sonepat, who vide order dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-4), dismissed the said case holding that the petitioners failed to establish that they are in possession/ cultivation of the disputed land(s), as per their share. The making of Annexure P-4, led the aggrieved therefrom, to institute there against, an executive appeal bearing No.192, before the learned revisional authority concerned, who yet, through a decision made thereon, on 13.01.2022 (Annexure P-5), also after declining relief to the revisionist therein, thus upheld the order, as carried in Annexure P-4. Therefore, the above made concurrent orders against the petitioners, have led them to institute there against, the instant writ petition before this Court.

Reasons for dismissing the instant writ petition

3. In the ownership column of the Jamabandis relating to the petition land(s), an entry of "Shamlat Har Char Pana Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat" occurs. Though in terms of Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, the above revenue entry, as occurs in the ownership column of the Jamabandis, though carries the import, that management and control of the land(s) thus with the said entry hence vests in the Gram Panchayat concerned, but yet ownership of such land(s) continues to vest in the proprietors. Therefore, but obviously, evidence, but clear and cogent, was required to become adduced, thus displaying that within the ambit of the apposite savings clause, as carried in Section 2 (g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter, the petitioners, through their predecessors-in-interest rather were holding independent cultivating possession of the petition land(s), but evidently prior to 1950.

"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"

4. The statutory authorities below, on a perusal of the documentary evidence, concluded that the above evidence in support of the ingredients, as carried in the apposite savings clause (supra), rather was completely wanting. Therefore, they made concurrent conclusions, that the benefit of the savings clause (supra) was not available to be validly assigned to the petitioners.

5. Even if assuming, that the said concurrent conclusions are frail, and, may be also assuming, that in the column of cultivation occurring in the Jamabandis, appertaining to the petition land(s), and, also assuming that such Jamabandis are drawn assumingly prior to 1950. Moreover even if assumingly, the said Jamaband