LPA No. 1369 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1369 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.12.2009 Jagdish Singh ......Appellant Versus Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department, Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Jatinder Singla, Advocate, for the appellant HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this court on 15.5.2009, whereby the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Collector to decide the petition filed by the present appellant under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 [ for short `the Act' ], on merits after framing the issues. It has been noticed by the Learned Single Judge that an application was filed to seek ejectment of Ruldu Singh, father of the present appellant, which was allowed on 21.5.1963. The Panchayat has purportedly taken possession thereafter on 7.8.1963. The present appellant has filed a civil suit for declaration that he is owner and in possession of the land in question. The plaint of the said suit was returned to the appellant for the reason that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same. LPA No. 1369 of 2009 [2] Thereafter, the present appellant filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act on 10.6.1997. The said petition was accepted on 13.12.2004. The appeal filed by the Panchayat was dismissed on 20.1.2006. The said orders were impugned by the Panchayat in a writ petition before this Court. The Learned Single Judge has accepted the writ petition on the ground that the Collector has decided the petition under Section 11 of the Act in a summary manner, though such proceedings are required to be decided as a regular suit i.e.,after framing issues and affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on such issues. It is the said order which is under challenge in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kannan (dead) by LRs and others v. V.S. Pandurangam (dead) by LRs. and others, AIR 2008 SC 951; the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Ajit Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, 2005(3) PLR 50; Kashmir Singh and others v. Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2006(1) Local Acts Reporter 606 and the Single Bench judgments of this Court reported as Thakur Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 PLJ 195 and Tika and others v. Ram Chander & others, 2003(3) PLR 631, wherein it has been held that non-framing of the issues, pales into insignificance if the parties have understood their case and have led evidence in respect of their respective contentions. It is contended that non- framing of the issues is merely an irregularity as the parties have led voluminous evidence before the Collector. Therefore, the matter could not have been remanded back only for the reason that the issues were not framed. LPA No. 1369 of 2009 [3] The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid judgments cannot be said to be incorrect. However, the fact remains that the Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the Collector has proceeded to decide the petition under Section 11 of the Act in a summary manner and that the procedure meant for deciding the same as a regular suit, was not followed. In view of the said fact, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the Collector for fresh decision after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in respect of their respective contentions, cannot be said to be incorrect, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present intra Court appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE [ JORA SINGH ] JUDGE 10-12-2009 ds