IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.106 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.2.2010 The Gram Panchayat. -----Appellant Vs. The Commissioner, Gurgaon & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing application for recall of earlier order dated 22.9.2000, dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn, on the ground that order was made on the statement counsel for the Gram Panchayat itself. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. None appears for the contesting parties, some of whom have been served through affixation. The contesting parties are proprietors of the village. Even though some of proprietors have not been served, since claim of the appellants is only for decision by the Collector on merits, instead of insisting on service of all the proprietors, we proceed to dispose of the matter 4. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the writ petition arose out of the proceedings under the Punjab LPA No.106 of 2006 Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) relating to the question of vesting of the shamlat deh (common land). 5. Case of the Panchayat is that order of the Commissioner regarding proportion of disposal of common land was contrary to provisions of the Act, particularly Section 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing, prayer for withdrawal of writ petition was made and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the Panchayat filed C.M. No.313 of 2006, stating in para 13 that the land being adjacent to Delhi and very valuable, withdrawal of the writ petition was collusive in connivance of some property dealers with the then Sarpanch. When this fact came to the notice of other members of the Panchayat, resolution was passed to move this Court. No reply was filed to the application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since serious allegations of collusion and fraud were made in the application which remained unrebutted, learned Single Judge should have restored the writ petition and decided the same on merits. On merits, he submits that in the impugned order dated 1.8.1990 passed by the Commissioner as appellate authority, the matter has been remanded to the Collector, restricting the scope of adjudication. The Panchayat should be at liberty to raise all legal contentions and not be bound by the limitation in the order of remand. 2 LPA No.106 of 2006 7. We find merit in the contention raised. In absence of denial of the allegations of collusion and fraud, we are of view that in the circumstances of the case, it will be in the interest of justice that the matter is considered on merits. Accordingly, we set aside order dated 13.1.2006 in C.M. No.313 of 2006 and recall order dated 22.9.2000, dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn. We are of the view that it will be just and fair that the Panchayat is given opportunity to raise all available legal contentions before the Collector without limitation of conditions in order of remand. 8. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and direct the Collector to take an appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law after due opportunity to all affected parties. 9. The appellant may appear before the Collector for further proceedings on 26.4.2010. 10. The Collector may take a final decision within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 05, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3