IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 8281 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 17th August, 2011. Hans Raj Petitioner through Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate Versus The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana Mr. P.S.Sikand, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 09.01.2008, 29.04.2008 and 26.11.2008 [Annexures P-12, P-13 and P-14] passed by respondents No. 3 to 1 respectively whereby he has been ordered to be evicted from the land measuring 13 kanals 8 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Majri, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal pursuant to an eviction application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7[2] of the Punjab Village Common Lands [Regulation] Act, 1961. It is indeed not disputed that the petitioner raised a question of title in the above eviction proceedings and relied upon certain entries in the revenue record to contend that he was owner in possession of the suit land. It is well settled that wherever the title of the Gram Panchayat is disputed and there is some prima facie evidence to substantiate such claim, the Summary Court ought to convert the eviction proceedings into a suit under Section 13-A of the Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana, and decide the title dispute. No such process has been followed in the present case. However, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat fairly states that the matter can be remitted to the Collector, Kaithal to convert the proceedings into a suit under Section 13-A and decide the title claim in a time bound manner. The plea taken on behalf of the Gram Panchayat is quite fair and just. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent that the eviction orders are directed to be kept in abeyance and while remitting the case, the Collector, Kaithal is directed to convert the proceedings into a suit under Section 13-A of the Act and decide the same at the earliest by giving not more than four opportunities to each party to lead their respective evidence preferably on their own responsibility. No request for adjournment shall be entertained. The suit shall be decided within a period of six months. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Kaithal on 19.09.2011. Disposed of. Dasti. August 17, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE