https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456158 Revenue entries in jamabandis did not prevail over the Sharat Wajib ul Arz and land classification where the record showed uncultivable land used for common village purposes; in the absence of rebuttal, the land was treated as Shamlat Deh and the revenue entries were only paper entries. The petitioners also failed to prove independent cultivating possession before 26 January 1950, so the saving clause under Section 2(g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 was not attracted. They further failed to establish that the land was Bachat land reserved for re-partition or re-allotment, and the challenge to the Panchayat mutation therefore failed. en-us Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2024 19:57:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456158 Revenue entries in jamabandis did not prevail over the Sharat Wajib ul Arz and land classification where the record showed uncultivable land used for common village purposes; in the absence of rebuttal, the land was treated as Shamlat Deh and the revenue entries were only paper entries. The petitioners also failed to prove independent cultivating possession before 26 January 1950, so the saving clause under Section 2(g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 was not attracted. They further failed to establish that the land was Bachat land reserved for re-partition or re-allotment, and the challenge to the Panchayat mutation therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456158