CWP No.8877 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8877 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.4.2010 Gurdial Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl.A.G. Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for respondent no.4. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 2.4.2008, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner(IRD), (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) accepting the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner purchased proprietary rights, in the land in dispute, from certain co-sharers and thereafter filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for declaration of his title. The application was dismissed in default on 17.4.2006 but restored vide order dated 18.9.2006. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Joint Development Commissioner, who vide his order dated 2.4.2008 accepted CWP No.8877 of 2008 2 the appeal on the grounds that an earlier application, filed under Section 11 of the Act was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.8.1995 and even otherwise, the petitioner had no case on merits. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the withdrawal of an earlier application, filed under Section 11 of the Act, cannot be a reason to set aside the order of restoration and decide the appeal on merits. It is submitted that the appellate authority was seized of the validity of the order of restoration and not the merits of the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act. The appellate authority, therefore, could not have accepted the appeal by referring to the merits of the case. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is an ex- Sarpanch. He was aware that the land belongs to the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan, but in a malafide attempt to appropriate Gram Panchayat property, purchased this property. The Commissioner, therefore, rightly accepted the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and have no hesitation in holding that the Commissioner has committed an error of jurisdiction in accepting the appeal. The Commissioner was required to consider whether the order of restoration, passed by the Collector, was legal or valid. The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to appraise the merits of the cause raised in the application under Section 11 of the Act and record an opinion on merits. The jurisdiction to record an opinion on the question of title vested with the Collector. Admittedly, the Collector recorded no such opinion and merely recalled the order dismissing the application in default. The order passed by the appellate authority is, therefore, without jurisdiction. CWP No.8877 of 2008 3 In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 2.4.2008, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) is set aside and the order dated 18.9.2006, passed by the Collector is affirmed. Parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Deputy Director, exercising the power of the Collector, Patiala, on 25.5.2010. 27.4.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE