The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraud vitiates all actions, and collusion or conspiracy to deprive the rights of others renders transactions void ab initio. The court also emphasized the principles of substantial justice and the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9185, 9309, 10420, 10421 and 10447 of 2014 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 9185 of 2014.

2. The petitioners have laid challenge to the orders dated 17.02.2010 and 16.11.2012 passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'). Vide the first order dated 17.02.2010, the above-named Authority condoned the delay of 4832 days in filing of appeal by the Gram Panchayat of village Chachao Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali and vide the subsequent order dated 16.11.2012, the said appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat has been allowed and consequently the suit instituted by the petitioners under Section 11 of the 1961 Act to declare them owners in possession of the suit land, has been dismissed.

3. The 1961 Act whereunder jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred, enables an inhabitant of the village to institute a declaratory petition under Section 11 to claim ownership rights over the land in his possession which the Gram Panchayat claims to have vested in it being shamlat Deh. In the absence of declaration of title, Section 7 of the 1961 Act contemplates summary eviction proceedings at the instance of the Gram Panchayat and the person found in unauthorized possession can be evicted and possession restored in favour of the Gram Panchayat.

4. The petitioners claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the land in dispute, filed declaratory suit/petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act against the Gram Panchayat of their village. They claimed possession of the suit land prior to the cut off date of 26.01.1950 and based upon their continuous possession are said to have acquired ownership rights qua the subject-land.

5. It is undeniable that the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat filed written statement 'admitting possession' of the petitioners over the suit land. The said admission was the primary and principal piece of evidence relied upon by the Collector to decree the petitioners' suit vide order dated 11.12.1998. The Collector specifically observed that "the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chahco Majra has also admitted the possession of the petitioners over the suit land in her statement and has stated that the petitioners have been cultivating the suit land from the time of their fore-fathers..."

6. The Gram Panchayat chose to file appeal against the above-stated order of the Collector on 04.05.2009 only. An application for condonation of delay of 4832 days was also moved. It was specifically alleged in the application that the order dated 11.12.1998 was kept secret with mala fide intention by the successive Sarpanches and that "public property worth crores of rupees is involved in the case....."

7. The petitioners contested the above-stated application but the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 17.2.2010 condoned the delay observing that the decree was obtained from the Court of Collector in connivance and collusion and that the value of the property involved runs into crores of rupees.

8. The petitioners did not opt to challenge the abovestated order before any superior forum and took chance of decision of the main appeal on merits. As the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab, has allowed the appeal of Gram Panchayat, both the orders have been challenged in this writ petition.

9. It may be mentioned at this stage that the land in dispute was meanwhile acquired by the State of Punjab vide Award dated 16.04.2010 for the regulated urbanization of SAS Nagar, Mohali, adjoining Chandigarh. The obvious fight between the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat now revolves around the compensation amount.

10. The question as to whether the petitioners, on the basis of the