IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1175 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.2.2010 Surat Singh. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Rajender Chhokar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr Sanjay Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4 ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against the order of the Collector dated 4.10.2006, as affirmed by higher statutory authorities, remanding the issue of eviction of the appellant to the lower authority for fresh decision. 2. The respondent Panchayat filed application in question for eviction of the appellant under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 but in view of objection that identical application had been dismissed earlier, the application was dismissed. On appeal, the Collector set aside the said order, observing that the prescribed authority failed to consider certain aspects of the matter and remanded the matter for fresh decision, on merits, in accordance with law. LPA No.1175 of 2009 3. Learned Single Judge after referring to judgment of the Civil Court and entries in record, held that prima facie the land was vested in the Panchayat being common land and thus, dismissal of earlier application was no bar to fresh application. The writ petition was dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of judgment of this Court in Azamu v. The Collector, Sonepat & others 1983 PLJ 392, second application for eviction was not maintainable. This contention is opposed by learned counsel for the Panchayat. 6. We need not go into the matter at this stage. The Collector has remanded the matter. The objection of the petitioner can be considered by the prescribed authority itself in accordance with law. It is made clear that the prescribed authority will be at liberty to take its decision in the matter, without being bound by observations in the impugned orders. 7. The parties may appear before the prescribed authority for further proceedings on 26.4.2010. 8. The appeal is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 10, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2