IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 111 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 3,2009 Paras Nath ................................................................................ Appellant Versus The Assistant Collector, Mahendergarh and others ............................................................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the appellant. .... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The appellant has prayed for quashing the orders passed by the Collector District Mahendergath and the Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon who have remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for deciding the application filed by the Gram Panchayat for ejectment of the petitioner. The appellant has also prayed for quashing the order dated 5.2.2009 vide which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.12.1993, Gram Panchayat village Niamatpur, Tehsil Narnaul District Mahendergarh filed an application under section 7 of the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1961 (for short “the Act”) before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for ejectment of the appellant herein. The said application was dismissed by an ex-parte order dated 18.7.1994. Appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector by order dated 31.10.1995. However, the L.P.A. No. 111 of 2009 (O&M) [ Page numbers ] Commissioner accepted the revision and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector on 23.1.1996 for deciding the same afresh after hearing both the parties. Assistant Collector again passed order of ejectment on 25.10.1996. The Collector accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to Assistant Collector by order dated 8.8.1998 holding that question of title is involved, therefore the Assistant Collector should first decide the title and then proceed further. This time the Assistant Collector dismissed the ejectment application of the Gram Panchayat on 29.6.1999. The appeal against this order was dismissed by Collector on 23.5.2000. In revision, the Commissioner by order dated 24.8.2001 set aside the orders dated 29.6.1999 and 23.5.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector respectively. The Commissioner remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector with a direction that question of title be decided afresh. The Assistant Collector dismissed the application on 13.11.2002. The Collector, however, accepted the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat and again remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector on 20.5.2003 for deciding the question of title. This order was impugned in appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by order dated 13.1.2005 held that remand order of District Collector is not valid. Further the case was remanded to the District Collector to see whether the decision of the Assistant Collector dated 13.11.2003 is valid or not. On the basis of this remand order the Collector accepted the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat on 28.12.2005 and directed the Assistant Collector to decide the same afresh on the basis of some directions. Revision against the same was also dismissed on 26.5.2006. Appellant herein aggrieved by both the orders, challenged them by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Single Judge L.P.A. No. 111 of 2009 (O&M) [ Page numbers ] after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition holding as under:- “Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner could not have directed the Assistant Collector, the manner in which he is to decide and otherwise also, no case of remand is made out. It may be noticed that Commissioner has directed the Assistant Collector to see the old Khasra numbers and their owners/cultivators to compare it with the new Khasra numbers to see whether the disputed land would vest in Panchayat or not. It is also noticed by the Commissioner that the finding that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat cannot be held to be valid till this exercise is done. Since the case has only been remanded and the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity which would call for any interference in this part of the direction given by the Commissioner, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Apparently, this exercise would lead to concluding the case one way or the other in a better manner. No exception, thus, can be taken to the observation made by the Commissioner. The prayer for setting aside the order of remand cannot be accepted and is rejected. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector on 2.3.2009. The parties would be entitled to raise all the relevant pleas before him.” Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed the present LPA. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that once the Assistant Collector held that the land in dispute is not shamlat deh, L.P.A. No. 111 of 2009 (O&M) [ Page numbers ] it was not open for the Collector in appeal and Commissioner in revision to remand the case back to the Assistant Collector with a direction to see which new Khasra numbers were allotted at the time of consolidation in lieu of old Khasra numbers and to see its ownership and prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. After thoughtful consideration of the case we do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The short point involved in the matter is whether the Collector in appeal and the Commissioner in revision could direct the Assistant Collector to see the old Khasra numbers and compare it with new Khasra numbers and find out whether the disputed land would vest in Panchayat or not, when the Assistant Collector has already held that the land is not shamlat deh within the meaning of the Act. In our view such a direction and decision thereon would only aid in deciding the issue completely and effectively. Thus, there is no infirmity in the orders of remand. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. Therefore, the present LPA is dismissed. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE 3.3.2009 rupi