LPA No. 169 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 169 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.01.2010 Suleman ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vimal Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the State. Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate for the Gram Panchayat. ... Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing writ petition against order of the revenue authorities, upholding the order of eviction against the appellant under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. 2. Respondent No.5 – Panchayat filed application for eviction. The appellant filed application for rejection of the said application. The Assistant Collector vide order dated 25.6.2002 (Annexure P-3), dismissed the application of Panchayat with the observation that land was in possession of the appellant prior to 1917-18 and Panchayat had not LPA No. 169 of 2009 2 produced any evidence to show its ownership. 3. Against above order, the Panchayat preferred an appeal, which was allowed on the ground that as per Jamabandi for the year 1996-97, ownership of Panchayat was proved and there was nothing to show that the appellant was in possession at the relevant time. The appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner by submitting that he was not given any opportunity to prove his case and the matter should be remanded to the Assistant Collector for passing fresh order after giving an opportunity to the appellant. The Commissioner rejected the claim of the appellant, which order has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no opportunity was given to the appellant after holding the Panchayat to be owner and in such a situation, appellate authority should have remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for fresh decision, in accordance with law. This contention could not be rebutted by learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Fatehabad, for fresh decision, in accordance with law. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the said authority on 22.3.2010. The appeal is disposed of. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge ( Alok Singh ) Judge 28.01.2010 sk.