AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. Challenge in this present writ petition is to the orders dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in the revision petition which was preferred by the petitioners dismissing the same as also the orders dated 04.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Sonipat, dismissing the application which has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the 1961 Act') (as applicable to the State of Haryana) and the order dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, where appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the authorities below have failed to appreciate that as per the provisions of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act the case of the petitioners would fall under the exceptions as contained in Clauses (iii) and (viii) and of Section 2(g). He on this basis contends that the petitioners should have been declared the owners of the land and the gram panchayat cannot be said to be the owner as the land would not fall in the definition of 'shamlat deh'. For asserting this he contends that as per the jamabandis which have been placed on record for the years 1938-39, 1942-43, 1950-51, 1958-59 and 1963-64 where the land has been recorded as 'shamlat thola' in the column of ownership and it is mentioned as 'khud kasht maqbooja malkan' in the column of possession. He, thus, contends that the land being in the cultivating possession of the land owners and the remarks column clearly indicating that the land was through inheritance, the case of the petitioners would fall in the exception as contained in Clauses (iii) and (viii) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. He, therefore, contends that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside and declaration be issued that the petitioners are the owners in possession of the said land.

3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the pleadings as well as the records and specially the jamabandis, reference whereof has been made by him. The relevant portion with regard to the present case as mentioned in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act, covering the shamlat deh reads as follows:-

“Shamilat deh” includes-

(1) xxxx

(2) xxxx

(3) xxxx

(4) xxx

(5) xxxx

but does not include land which-

(i) xxx

(ii) xxx

iii) has been partitioned and brought under cultivation by individual landholders before the 26th January 1950;

(iv) xxx

(v) xxx

(vi) xxxx

(vii) xxxx

(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.

(ix) xxx”

4. A perusal of the above would show that for a case to fall in the exceptions the first condition is that the land should have been partitioned and brought under cultivation by the individual landholders before 26th January, 1950, as provided in Clause (iii). It is not the case of the petitioners that the land has been partitioned. As per even Clause (viii), the land revenue record indicates that the individuals are not in cultivating possession rather it is a joint possession of all the land owners which have been shown. It is an admitted position that the entries in the jamabandis for the year 1938-39 onwards till the year 1963-64 stand repeated where the land in question is recorded as 'shamlat thola' in the column of ownership and 'khud kasht maqbooja malkan' is mentioned in the column of possession. It is also not a disputed fact that the petitioners have not been shown to be the individual owners in possession of the land in question. Another aspect which needs to be taken note of is that the land has been recorded to be 'banjar kadeem' which continues till date. If that be so, it cannot be said that the land does not fall within the definition of 'shamlat deh' as provided under Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act.

5. We do not find any illegality in the orders impugned passed by the revenue authorities calling for interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction and therefore dismiss the same.