JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

Factual Background

Through a petition instituted before the ld. Collector concerned, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961'), the petitioners claimed a declaratory relief in their favour, qua title over the petition land(s), measuring 21 Kanals 13 Marlas, situated in Village Meham, Block Rajpura, District Patiala. However, the above relief, as claimed in the petition (supra), was declined by the ld. Collector concerned, vide order dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure P-3).

2. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order (supra), the petitioners made an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the validity thereof, by filing a statutory appeal before the learned statutory appellate authority, i.e. respondent No.1. However, the appeal so preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2015 (Annexure P-4).

3. Consequently, the petitioners, through the instant writ petition, by invoking the superintendence powers of this Court, as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the concurrent orders passed by the statutory authorities below.

Submissions By Counsel For The Petitioners

4. By placing reliance upon the provisions of Section 2(g)(iii)&(v) of the Act of 1961, and, upon the entry of "Shamlat Deh Hasab Hisas Paimana Malkiat" as recorded in the column of ownership, in all the Jamabandis, upto the stage of the drawing of consolidation operation in the Mohal concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has claimed that the petition land(s) fall outside the ambit of the inclusionary clause of the definition of "shamlat deh", which consequently saves them from vestment in the Gram Panchayat concerned. He argued that, as a matter of fact, one Teja Singh son of Puran Singh, i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was in possession of the petition land(s) since 26.01.1950, which factum is clear from the "Missal Haqiat" (1st Jamabandi after completion of consolidation) for the year 1956-1957, and, that the petition land(s) stands recorded therein as "Banjar Qadim". Advancing further arguments, he stated that the petition land(s) was neither reserved nor was ever utilized for any common purposes of the village community, therefore, the petition land(s) falls within the ambit of "Bachat land". The Khasra numbers of the petition land(s) were carved out from the old Khasra No.778/1, having total area 22 Bighas 00 Biswas, which in fact, has not been reserved for any common purposes of the village community, rather was in exclusive possession of Teja Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.

Analysis

5. Before we proceed to deal with the facts of the present matter and the principal dispute involved therein, it would be apt, at this juncture, to first deal with the legal propositions covering the present subject matter and therefore, Section 2(g)(iii)&(v) of the Act of 1961 is extracted hereinafter.

"2(g) "Shamilat deh" includes

XX XX XX

(iii) Land described in the revenue records as shamilat, Tarafs, Pattis, Pannas and Tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of village.

XX XX XX

(v) Land in any village described as banjar qadim and used for common purposes of the village, according to revenue records, but does not include land which:

3[Proviso.....................................................................]

4 [(i) becomes............................................................]

(ii) has been allotted on q