Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to an order passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon on 29th June, 1995 accepting the revision petition preferred by Gram Panchayat so as to order eviction of the petitioner from the land comprising in khasra No. 18/9 (8 kanals) and No. 18/10 (8 kanals), total 16 kanals of shamlat land of village Mulodi under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner has alleged that before consolidation the Gram Panchayat was owner of 60 bighas, 12 biswas as Gair Mumkin Rasta and Jo -har Banjar Kadim. The Gram Panchayat was allotted 106 kanals, 13 marlas land in lieu of said land. A separate khewat was also carved out by deducting proportionate area from the land of the land owners by the Consolidation Authority under the scheme framed under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (For short, the Consolidation Act). The separate khewat was named as Jumla Mustarka Malkan and 5 kanals of the land of the Petitioner was included by applying pro -rata cut on his holding. 2 -3. The petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction on 1st July, 1981 so as to restrain Gram Panchayat from interfering in his possession over land measuring 16 kanals. In the said suit Gram Panchayat was proceeded ex -parte and a decree was passed on 10th March, 1983 restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering in the possession of petitioner over the suit land. It is thereafter, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (For short, the Act) for eviction of the petitioner which was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul on 17th March, 1994. It was held that as per jamabandis Ex. D3, Ex. D4 and Ex.D5 land is banjar kadim and not used for public purposes, therefore, it is not shamlat deh. In appeal before the Collector it is found that only 5 kanals of land of the Petitioner is included in the newly carved out khewat, therefore, the petitioner is in illegal possession of remaining 11 kanals of land, thus, petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the land measuring 11 kanals. However, in further revision, the Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon found that from the jamabandis for the year 1977 -78, 1982 -83 and 1987 -88 land is owned by Gram Panchayat and in column No. 5 cultivating possession is shown as Makbuja Panchayat, whereas, in column No. 9 the land is described as banjar kadim. It is also observed that the name of the petitioner does not occur in the jamabandis. The Commissioner also found that Civil Court's decree has been granted after the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred by Act No. 2 of 1981 and thus, such decree cannot be made basis to resist the claim of the Panchayat. 4. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that 5 kanals of land was taken by the Consolidation Authority by applying pro -rata cut without payment of compensation and, therefore, such cut is illegal. It is also argued that the Commissioner could not exercise revisional jurisdiction as revisional jurisdiction was conferred by inserting Section 13B of the Act only in respect of application filed under Section 7 of the Act. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present writ petition. 6. The Consolidation Authority is competent to apply prorata cut to create a khewat described as Jumla Mustarka Malkan. It is not acquisition of land or estate. Such part of the scheme has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment reported as Bhagat Ram & others v. State of Punjab & others, : AIR 1967 SC 927. It has been held that as the proprietor has not been divested of ownership but merely right of management has been conferred upon the Panchayat which does not amount to acquisition of the estate. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that carving of Jumla Mustarka Malkan at the time of consolidation is not illegal. It may be noticed that subsequently with the enactment of Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, the land described as Jumla Mustarka Malkan came to be vested in Gram Panchayat. The legality of such amendment was decided by the Full Bench of this Court in case reported as Jai Singh and others v. State of Haryana, : 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 578 : 2003 (2) PLR 658. 7. In view of the said fact we do not find any merit in the argument raised that petitioner cannot be dispossessed from a land described as Jumla Mustarka Malkan being a proprietor in the village. 8. Though the assertion of the petitioner is that pro -rata cut was applied to augment the income of the Panchayat, but no evidence has been produced to support such contention. The scheme of consolidation has not been produced on record. 9. On the other hand, learned Commissioner has returned a finding in the jamabandi entries for the year 1977 -78,1982 -83 & 1987 -88, the land is recorded in the ownership of Gram Panchayat deh, whereas cultivating possession is of Makbuja Panchayat and that as per column No. 9, the land is banjar kadim. The name of the petitioner does not appear in three jamabandis. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to protect his possession in any manner. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the orders passed, which may warrant interference in the present writ petition. The same is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs.;