Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-5). It has been found that the petitioners have not produced any document to prove that they are in possession prior to 26.01.1950 whereas the Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner of the subject property.

2. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the land measuring 43 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in village Balbera, Tehsil and District Patiala. It is Gram Panchayat who is recorded as owner of the Shamilat Deh, whereas the land is said to be given to the respondent on lease. After the expiry of lease period, the respondents did not surrender the possession of land to the Gram Panchayat. The land in dispute has been used for common purposes of the village. It is also pleaded that the land was Shamilat Deh even prior to consolidation which has taken place in the year 1960-61. The respondent was not in possession as per the revenue record prior to the consolidation.

3. In reply, the stand of the petitioners was that the land in dispute had never been in possession of Gram Panchayat nor ever been used for common purposes nor the revenue record shows that the land is owned by Gram Panchayat. It is also argued that Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act, which was dismissed on 19.11.1996 and that Panchayat has no right to seek eviction of the petitioners. The learned Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala exercising the powers of Collector found that Panchayat is the owner as per the revenue record (Ex.P3). Shamilat Deh is recorded as owner in the column of ownership in the Jamabandi for the year 1998-99 whereas the petitioners are recorded in the column of cultivation. It was also found that the order dated 30.05.1997 gives liberty to the Panchayat to get the question of title decided. Therefore, the present application is maintainable and that the respondent has failed to prove his possession prior to January, 1950.

4. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that earlier Panchayat sough eviction of the petitioners by filing petition under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioners on 04.06.1996 which was dismissed on 30.05.1997 holding that the decision of Assistant Collector on 19.11.1996 under Section 7 of the Act operates as resjudicata. It is argued that once the petition of the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act has been dismissed, the Gram Panchayat could not seek adjudication of title under Section 11 of the Act. It is also argued that in terms of Rule 21-A, the present petition raising question of title is barred by limitation, as the petition under Section 11 of the Act has not been filed within 30 days. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as 1984 PLJ 42 titled as “Sarwan Singh and others Vs. Gram Panchayat Balad Kalan and others”.

5. Section 11 of the Act confers right on any Gram Panchayat to seek adjudication of the rights of Panchayat. It does not provide any limitation for initiating such proceedings for and on behalf of Panchayat. However, in Rule 21-A, it is stipulated that any person who claims a right in Panchayat must institute a case within 30 days of the day when cause of action arises. It is contended that the cause of action arose to Panchayat when petition under Section 7 of the Act was dismissed on 30.05.1997. Therefore, the proceedings filed in the year 2004 are barred by limitation.

6. The orders passed by the authorities under the Act in proceedings under Section 7 thereof are the summary proceedings, which proceeds on the assumption that the owner of the land is Panchayat. If in such proceedings, disputed question of t