Hemant Gupta, J.@mdashThe challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the Director, Village Development
and Panchayat, Punjab exercising the powers of the Commissioner u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short
''the Act'') whereby an appeal filed by the Panchayat in proceedings u/s 7 of the Act was accepted and the petitioners were ordered to be evicted
rejecting the claim of the petitioners that they are in cultivating possession prior to 26.01.1950.
2. It has been found that Panchayat has been leasing the land in question in the year 1979-80, 1980-81, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. While
considering the Jamabandies produced by the petitioners for the year 1943-44, 1965-66, it was found that the land is recorded as barani and
therefore the land was not cultivable. Thus, it was concluded that petitioners could not be in cultivating possession of the land in question so as to
bring their claim within the Exception (viii) of Section 2(g) of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that petitioners were in continuous possession of the land relying upon an order passed
by the Additional Director Consolidation on 07.03.1985. In the said order, it was found that petitioners were in possession of land measuring 10
Kanal 10 Marlas as per the Jamabandi for the year 1943-44, so they are entitled to necessary relief.
4. We do not find any merit in the arguments raised. In the Jamabandi for the year 1942-43 (Annexure P-10), the land is described in the
ownership column as shamilat deh hasab rasad khewat. Though, in such land Uttam Singh and Gurdas Singh are reflected in the column of
possession, but most of the land is banjar qadim. Such land is not a cultivable land. Still further, the petitioners have not proved their extent of
holding in the village and not proved that they were in possession of land, not exceeding their share in the village holding. Neither there is any proof
of holding of the petitioners in the village, nor they are in proved to be in cultivating possession. Even the possession was interrupted at least till
1985-86, before the order was passed by the Director Consolidation. Consequently, none of the conditions of Exception (viii) of Section 2(g) of
the Act are satisfied by the petitioners. In fact, one of the co-respondent before the Commissioner has made a statement that the possession of the
land has been given to Gram Panchayat.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 54 of 2012 titled as ''Gram Panchayat of Village Bajghera Vs. The Financial Commissioner
(Revenue) Haryana and others'', decided on 07.05.2014 has examined the question of vesting of land described in the revenue record as shamilat
deh hasab rasad khewat. It has been held that such land is owned by the Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(1) read with Section 4(1)(a) of the
Act.
6. For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment and the facts of the present case, we do not find any case is made out for interference in the
writ jurisdiction of this Court.
7. Dismissed.
