IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.20086 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 17, 2011 AMAR KAUR & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS DIRECTOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANAHCYAT DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. A.K. Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. KS Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. AP Singla, Advocate, for LRs of respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This order shall dispose of four Civil Writ Petitions viz. CWP No.20086 of 2009 (Amar Kaur and others v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others), CWP No.20089 of 2009 (Nahar Singh Civil Writ Petition No.20086 of 2009 2 and others v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others), CWP No.20110 of 2009 (Balbir Kaur v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others) and CWP No.20111 of 2009 (Amarjit Singh and another) as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2 For reference to facts, record of CWP No.20086 of 2009 (Amar Kaur and others v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others) is being taken up. 3 Persons, who claim to be proprietors of the village, have filed this writ petition in challenge to orders dated 31.8.2006 and 12.12.2008, Annexures P-29 and P- 32, respectively, passed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 4 The short question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revenue record does not indicate the ownership of Gram Panchayat since the year 1958-59. Learned counsel for the petitioners further asserts that no finding has been recorded in the impugned orders that the land is shamlat deh; that during consolidation, the land was reserved for common purposes; that the land was ever used for common Civil Writ Petition No.20086 of 2009 3 purposes; that the land is being utilised for phirni, pond, hadda rori or any other such common purpose, and yet, on the basis of a solitary revenue entry, order of ejectment of the petitioners has been passed. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat has not been able to controvert this factual position, in reference to impugned orders (Annexures P-29 and P-32). 6 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7 The authorities under Section 7 of the Act were required to take into account the plea, as noticed in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In such circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be upheld. The matter, however, cannot be left at that and, therefore, re-adjudication on the issue is required. 8 In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Orders (Annexures P-29 and P-32) are hereby quashed. 9 The parties shall appear before the Prescribed Authority authorised to deal with the matters under Section 7 of the Act, on 7.3.2011. It is made clear that the petitioners would be at liberty to file their claim and material in support of the plea, as taken before this Court, before the Prescribed Authority. Civil Writ Petition No.20086 of 2009 4 10 After giving hearing to the relevant and affected parties, the Authority shall re-adjudicate the issue and pass orders, as required by law, by 30.6.2011. February 17, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?