The presumption of truth in revenue records prevails unless cogent evidence is presented to the contrary, affirming the Gram Panchayat's ownership over disputed lands.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since all the writ petitions (supra) arise from a common order, therefore all the writ petitions (supra) are amenable to be decided through a common verdict.

2. One Gurmail Singh, and, one Teja Singh both respectively instituted case bearing No. DDDP (11) Bhunerheri-40, and, case bearing No. DDDP(11) Bhunerheri-41, before the learned Collector concerned, whereins they impleaded the Gram Panchayat concerned, as respondent. In the said cases (supra), the above claimed the rendition of a declaratory decree qua them, for theirs becoming declared as lawful owners in possession of the suit land, as detailed in the head note of the cases (supra).

3. Both the cases (supra) were decided through a common order being made thereon, on 10.1.1994. The learned Collector concerned, after considering the relevant entries, as carried in the relevant revenue records, whereins in the column of possession thereof, the disputed lands were shown as Maqbuza Malkan, and, in the column of cultivation, they were described as Banjar Kadim, besides in the column of ownership there occurs an entry of Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat, thus concluded, that petitioners in the suits (supra) were holding continuous possession over the suit lands, thereby in terms of apposite savings clause, as occurs in Section 2(g)(5)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961), provision whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, they were held entitled to the espoused declaratory decree, and, as such through the order dated 10.1.1994 (Annexure P-4), the Collector concerned, declared both Teja Singh and Gurmail Singh to be the lawful owners in possession of the disputed lands.

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

4. On a reading of the appeal bearing No. 36 of 1994 against the order (supra), it appears that the same became reared by the Gram Panchayat, Jaffarpur. Moreover, it also appears, that apart from the decision (supra), made upon the cases (supra) by the Collector concerned, some other village proprietors, had also filed declaratory suits, in respect of disputed lands, and, thereons too the espoused declaratory decree became assigned to them by the Collector concerned, leading the aggrieved therefrom, thus the Gram Panchayat concerned, to also institute Appeals No. 33 of 1994, 34 of 1994, 35 of 1994 and 36 of 1994 before the Appellate Authority concerned.

5. Moreover, a reading of the verdict drawn by the Appellate Authority concerned, on Appeal No. 36 of 1994, discloses that along with the said appeal also became decided Appeal No. 33 of 1994, Appeal No. 34 of 1994 and Appeal No. 35 of 1994.

6. Be that as it may, though case bearing No. DDDP (11) Bhunerheri-40 instituted by one Gurmail Singh, and, case bearing No. DDDP(11) Bhunerheri-41, instituted by one Teja Singh, led to the drawing of the order dated 10.1.1994 (Annexure P-4), thus the petitioners in the instant petition have chosen to assail the order dated 30.3.1995 (Annexure P- 5), passed by the Appellate Authority concerned, whereby the latter after upsetting Annexure P-4, thus non-suited the present petitioners.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has forcefully contended before this Court, that with cogent evidence existing on record, thus suggestive, that the beneficient grace of the above savings clause to the definition of shamlat deh, rather is assignable to the present petitioners, yet the said adduced documentary evidence becoming completely overlooked.

8. However, this Court is not led to accept the said submission. The reason for declining the said submission emanates from the factum, that in the jamabandis for the years 1947-48, and, 1957-58, the Gram Panchayat concerned, is detailed to be the owner of the disputed lands. The mutation of