J.S. Khehar, J. - According to the claim raised by the petitioner, he is a permanent resident of village Sirsi in Tehsil and District Karnal. The petitioners family claims to have been in continuous cultivating possession of the land in dispute which is situated in village Bajida Jattan in Tehsil and District Karnal, since the time of their forefathers. Their possession is stated to have commenced prior to the year 1940.

2. The Gram Panchayat, village Bajida Jattan, filed a petition against the petitioner under the provisions of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Premises Act), for ejectment from the said land. In the ejectment petition, the Gram Panchayat claimed to be the owner of the land in dispute. It was also the claim of the Grain Panchayat, that the petitioner was in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the same.

3. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the written statement filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid ejectment petition, he had expressly raised the plea, that the ejectment petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, village Bajida Jattan, under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, was not maintainable, and that, a petition for ejectment with the prayers made by the Gram Panchayat in the said petition could have only been filed under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation). Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Village Common Lands Act). It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner seriously contests the claim of title at the hands of the Gram Panchayat, and as such, the ejectment petition could not have been disposed of without first settling the issue of title. In this behalf, it is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even the issue of title in respect of the land in dispute could have been settled only under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. It is, accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, under the Public Premises Act that the authorities while adjudicating upon the claim raised by the Gram Panchayat had adjudicated on a matter which is totally beyond their jurisdiction.

4. In so far as the instant controversy is concerned, it would be pertinent to mention that the matter came to be decided, in the first instance, by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Karnal, vide an order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure P-4), wherein he arrived at the conclusion, that the Gram Panchayat of village Bajida Jattan, was the owner of the land in dispute, and also, that the petitioner was in an unauthorized and illegal possession of the same. Accordingly, beside ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question, the petitioner was required to pay the Gram Panchayat of village Bajida Jattan, penalty at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre per annum for having unauthorisedly and illegally occupied the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat.

5. Dissatisfied with the order dated 17.7.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. By an order dated 15.3.2007, the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Karnal, dated 17.7.2006, and remanded the controversy back for re-determination after affording the appellants a full opportunity to lead their evidence.

6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact, that the issue of jurisdiction raised by him before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Karnal as also, before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, has not been adjudicated upon by the aforesaid authorities. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that the petitioner is unnecessarily being harassed at the hands of the authorities under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, despite the fact that the auth