IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18266 of 2006 Date of Decision: 16.09.2008 Daman Singh ....Petitioner Versus Joint Dev. Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr.G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. M.S. Rai, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The main claim of the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is for quashing of the orders dated 18-07-2001 and 12-05-2005 (Annexures P-1 and P-2). Respondent no.3 filed an application dated 31-03-2000 under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 against the petitioner for his eviction from the land measuring 21 Kanal 7 Marla, situated in Village Hazara Singh Wala, Tehsil C.W.P. No. 18266 of 2006 -2- and District Ferozepur. In the same application, the petitioner also filed his objections, on the ground that his application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the `Act 1961), be decided before the application under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 and also filed a suit under Section 11 of the Act 1961. The said suit was dismissed by Divisional Deputy Director (exercising the powers of the Collector), on the ground that in spite of 12 opportunities afforded to the petitioner, the petitioner could not lead his evidence. Aggrieved with the order dated 18-07-2001, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Development Commissioner (Exercising the powers of the Commissioner) but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 12-05-2005 on the same ground that he had failed to produce the evidence even after having availed 12 opportunities. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no issues were framed in the said suit and only two effective opportunities were granted to establish his claim and, therefore, the findings recorded for dismissal of the suit are not correct. From the perusal of the order dated 18-07-2001, it is clear that none of the parties i.e. neither the petitioner nor the respondent was present before respondent No.2 on 18-07-2001. It is also correct that no issues were framed. The matter was decided on merits without framing the issues. C.W.P. No. 18266 of 2006 -3- We therefore deem it appropriate to afford another opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence as valuable rights are involved in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the matter is remanded back for fresh decision. Accordingly, the orders dated 18-07-2001 passed by Collector/Divisional Deputy Director and order dated 12-05-2005 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by Joint Development Commissioner are set aside and the matter is remanded back before the Collector to decide the case afresh after granting adequate opportunity to the parties, subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. The parties should appear before the Collector on 15-10-2008. Thereafter, the petitioner will lead and complete his evidence in a maximum of two hearings. The respondents be granted equal number of opportunities and the matter be finally decided within six months from the date of appearance before the Collector. Disposed of accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (J.S. KHEHAR) JUDGE September 16, 2008. gurpreet