The court affirmed that land classified as 'Banjar Qadim' does not vest in the Gram Panchayat unless proven otherwise, and the presumption of truth in revenue records was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's claim.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Lalit Batra, J.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner-Bhagwan Kaur, seeking quashing of order dated 17.08.1995 (Annexure P-3), passed by Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab (Exercising the Powers of Commissioner), (hereinafter to be referred as 'Commissioner'), vide which Appeal No.12 of 1992 under Section 11(2) of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act, 1961'), filed by respondent-Gram Panchayat, Village Kamaspur (hereinafter to be referred as 'respondent'), against order dated 29.11.1991 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector/D.D.P.O., Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as 'Collector'), was accepted and a declaration has been issued that land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.72/158, Khasra No. 30/17(9-9), 18(7-16), 23(8-6), 24(8-16), 32/2(2-0), 3(8-0), 4(9-5), 6(2-8), 7(8-0), 8(7-9), 14(6-1), measuring 76 Kanals - 10 Marlas, situate in village Kamaspur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, belongs to Gram Panchayat and as Bhagwan Kaur is in unauthorized possession of the land in dispute, she has been ordered to be dispossessed from the said land.

2. Petitioner's case in brief is that she is widow and is owner-in-possession of land in dispute and earlier her husband-Sohan Singh and his predecessor-in-interest were in possession of the said land, being owners and members of the proprietary body of the village. In the Jamabandis for the years 1940-41, 1944-45 and 1951-52 upto 1960-61, the land in dispute is described as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat and in the column of cultivation, Makbooza Malkan has been mentioned. Thus, the said land was owned by the proprietary body of the village and was in possession of the share holders in accordance with their respective share holdings. The land in dispute has also been described as Banjar Qadim and in the revenue record, there is no reference that the said land is being used for common purposes of the village. The petitioner and previously her husband and his predecessor-in-interest remained in peaceful cultivating possession of the land in dispute without any objection or hindrance from anybody including respondent. In the Jamabandis from 1941 onwards, the said land has been described as Banjar Qadim but in possession of proprietors. Eventually, the said land was made cultivable by the petitioner and her predecessors-in-interest and the same is in continuous possession of them till date. On 14.12.1989, respondent-Gram Panchayat, through its Sarpanch, filed a petition under Section 7 of Act, 1961, against the petitioner alleging therein that she had obtained the land in dispute pursuant to a lease but even after expiry of the lease period, she has failed to vacate the said land and is in unauthorized possession of the same. However, there was no mention in the said petition regarding any lease deed, date of execution of lease deed, its commencement and duration and rate of rent. Above said petition was contested by petitioner-Bhagwan Kaur contending that the land in dispute does not vest in the respondent and she also filed petition under Section 11 of Act, 1961, stating therein that land in dispute does not belong to respondent as it was Banjar Qadim and was never used for the benefit of the village community, however, the said land was made cultivable by her and her predecessors-in-interest about thirty years back and respondent has no right, title or interest in the said land. Both the said petitions were clubbed together by the Collector and after adduction of evidence and hearing the parties, petition under Section 11 of Act, 1961, filed by petitioner was allowed, whereas petition under Section 7 of Act, 1961, filed by respondent was dismissed, vide common order dated 29.11.1991 (Annexure P-2), holding therein that land in dispute is not Shamilat Deh and, therefore, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Feeling aggrieved, respondent preferred appeal before Commissione