Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: (Oral) - By way of this order, we shall dispose of CWPs No.11887 and 14195 of 2009 as they involve adjudication of the same questions of fact and law. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.14195 of 2009.

2. CWP No.14195 of 2009 has been filed by Municipal Council, Zirakpur, successor to the Nagar Council and Gram Panchayat, Zirakpur, for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing order dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Punjab, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the ‘Commissioner’ under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “1961 Act”) holding that the land, in dispute, vests in Mohinder Singh.

3. CWP No.11887 of 2009 has been filed by, one Karam Chand, impugning the above orders on the ground that the land, in dispute, vests in Ishro Devi and not in Mohinder Singh.

4. Counsel for Municipal Council, Zirakpur, submits that the Collector as well as the appellate authority have disregarded provisions of the 1961 Act, ignored the fact, that the land was merely leased out to Ganga Ram, for seven years, under the East Punjab Utilisation of Land Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the “1949 Act”) and by a perverse process of reasoning declared Mohinder Singh, his alleged heir, as owner of the land, in dispute. The Collector and the appellate authority have held that as Mohinder Singh is in possession and the Gram Panchayat has not claimed ownership against other similarly situated allottees/lessees, it has failed to prove its title. It is argued that failure of the Gram Panchayat to claim ownership with respect to other similarly situated lessees, cannot, divest the Gram Panchayat or its successors of their title or confer title upon the private respondent. Mohinder Singh, respondent No.1, claims that he has inherited the land, in dispute, as he is the grandson of Ganga Ram and also pleads that Ganga Ram executed an agreement dated 03.11.1978, agreeing to sell the land, in dispute, to him. In the absence of any document of title, much less, an allotment or even a lease deed beyond the initial period of seven years, Ganga Ram had no right, title or interest that he could pass on to Mohinder Singh, by an agreement to sell or by inheritance. The land, in dispute, is recorded as ownership of the Gram Panchayat, thereafter, as ownership of the Nagar Council and now the ownership of Municipal Council, Zirakpur. The land, in dispute, clearly vests in the petitioner. The impugned orders, holding to the contrary, may, therefore, be set aside.

5. Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that it is true that the land, in dispute, was leased to Ganga Ram under the 1949 Act but as no action has been taken against other similarly situated lessees, who have sold the land, the Gram Panchayat is estopped from asserting ownership over the land, in dispute. It is further submitted that the land, in dispute, was Banjar Qadim, and as it was not used for any common purpose, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that as order passed by the Collector has not been challenged in the writ petition, filed by the Municipal Council, the writ petition has to be dismissed summarily for failure to challenge the order passed by the Collector.

6. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, the pleadings and various affidavits filed by officers of the State of Punjab, during the course of hearing and have no hesitation in holding that the impugned orders are perverse and arbitrary as they disclose a failure to consider the nature of allotment/lease, rights flowing therefrom, have been passed by ignoring the absence of any document conferring proprietary rights upon Ganga Ram, from whom respondents No.1 and 2 draw title and that the land is recorded as ownership of the Gr