CWP No. 5437 of 1993 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.5437 of 1993 Date of decision:06.07.2011 Lachhman and others.....................................................Petitioners versus The Collector Kaithal and others...................................Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Kuldip Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. --- SABINA,J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned orders, Annexure P2 and Annexure P3. Gram Panchayat-Balu had moved an application for ejectment of the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') (as applicable to Haryana). Vide order dated 3.3.1992, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kaithal, allowed the petition filed by CWP No. 5437 of 1993 2 the Gram Panchayat and ordered that the respondents be evicted from the suit land. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Collector, Kaithal vide order dated 31.8.1992 (Annexure P3). Hence, the present petition. The Gram Panchayat-Balu alleged in the petition under Section 7 of the Act that the suit land was shamlat deh and, hence, was owned by it. A perusal of the impugned order dated 3.3.1992 (Annexure P2) reveals that the petitioners had taken the plea that the land in dispute was shamlat patti and, hence, could not be described as shamlat land and did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was imperative for the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kaithal to have decided the question of title first before proceeding to decide the ejectment petition under Section 7(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat agree that the impugned orders be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kaithal for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with the law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 3.3.1992 (Annexure P2) and dated 31.8.1992 (Annexure P3) are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Assistant Collector, Ist grade, Kaithal for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. ( Sabina ) Judge July 06, 2011 arya