IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3093 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.5.2011 Tarsem Singh and others … Petitioners versus Gram Panchayat, Hassanpur and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the petitioners ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioners filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, against the Gram Panchayat, Hassanpur, Nirmal Singh, Sarpanch, was given the authority to contest the petition. An application under Order 1 rule 10 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by respondent No.2-Block Development and Panchayat Officer through Amarjit Singh on the ground that the interest of the State is involved in the land in question and they suspect collusion between the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat as the earlier writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was already withdrawn and as such, they are necessary parties for adjudication of the present petition in the interest of the State. The application has been allowed vide impugned order dated 11.4.2011 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner(Development)-cum-Collector, Ludhiana. Heard. The impugned order is non-speaking one. There is no discussion which impresses the Authority that there has been collusion between the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat of village Hassanpur through Nirmal Singh, Sarpanch. The application indicates that there is a C.R. No. 3093 of 2011 -2- notification issued by the Government authorizing the Panchayat Officer to defend/watch the interest of the State or Gram Panchayat in the relevant cases where the land of Gram Panchayat or Shamlat Deh is in question. However, there has been no discussion with regard to the State notification, what to say of hearing the arguments on the same. Therefore, in all fairness, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Additional Deputy Commissioner(Development)-cum-Collector, Ludhiana, with a direction to pass a fresh detailed order after hearing the parties, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 10, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE