We do not see how these would preclude the State Government from conducting an actual on-ground inspection and 15coming to a different conclusion as to their actual use. It is indeed possible that following the said orders, the land may have had unauthorized structures, which were being used beyond mere agricultural purposes. This possibility is only further enhanced by the Respondents’ own stated intention of putting the lands to residential use. 21. Regardless, we may also hasten to add here that there are serious doubts on the jurisdictional competence of the Civil Court, in holding that agriculture related structures could be raised without prior permission. Such a hasty declaration by the ADJ was ex facie uncalled for and beyond its jurisdictional authority, given that it was expressly barred under the Punjab Periphery Act. 22. However, the Respondents’ strategy of arguing that their constructions were authorized (being agricultural), while simultaneously seeking exemption from