The court upheld the importance of following the procedure established by law and emphasized the significance of concurrent findings of facts by the Collector and the Commissioner.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. This common order shall dispose of the above captioned writ petitions, as in all these cases impugned orders which are under challenge are one and the same.

3. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat in all these writ petitions have challenged order dated 16.5.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3-The Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Patiala and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 15.9.2020 (Annexure P-6), on the ground that both the said orders were passed against the law specifically against the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1961').

4. The brief facts of all the four writ petitions are as follows:-

CWP-408-2021

5. The brief facts of the case are that the private respondents through their attorney Ayush Bhalla filed petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 seeking declaration that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Biswa 4 Biswasi out of the total land measuring 5 Bigha 9 Biswa 19 Biswasi compromised in Khewat No.716/674 Khatauni No.857, Khasra No.3905/61 (5B-9B-19B) situated in village Ayali Kalan.

CWP-412-2021

6. The brief facts of the case are that the private respondents through their attorney Ayush Bhalla filed petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 seeking declaration that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 2 Bigha 2 Biswa 9 Biswasi out of the total land measuring 5 Bigha 9 Biswa 19 Biswasi compromised in Khewat No.716/674 Khatauni No.857, Khasra No.3905/61 (5B-9B-19B) situated in village Ayali Kalan.

CWP-423-2021

7. The brief facts of the case are that the private respondent-Ayush Bhalla filed petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 1 Bigha 15 Biswa 0 Biswasi out of the total land measuring 5 Bigha 9 Biswa 19 Biswasi compromised in Khewat No.716/674 Khatauni No.857, Khasra No.3905/61 (5B-9B-19B) situated in village Ayali Kalan.

CWP-489-2021

8. The brief facts of the case are that the private respondent through his attorney Ayush Bhalla filed the petition under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 0 Bigha 1 Biswa 6 Biswasi out of the total land measuring 5 Bigha 9 Biswa 19 Biswasi compromised in Khewat No.716/674 Khatauni No.857, Khasra No.3905/61 (5B-9B-19B) situated in village Ayali Kalan.

9. The said petitions were contested by the Gram Panchayat, which took plea that the land in question vests in Gram Panchayat and the petitioners (private respondents) have got no right, title or interest in the same. Finally the petitions were allowed by respondent No.3 (while exercising the powers of Collector) vide impugned order (Annexure P-4).

10. Being not satisfied by the said order, the Gram Panchayat filed appeals before respondent No.2, who while exercising the powers of the Commissioner dismissed the said appeals vide impugned order (Annexure P-6).

11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders (Annexures P4 and P6), the Gram Panchayat has filed the present writ petitions.

12. We have heard counsel for the petitioner.

13. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders contended that as per Jamabandi for the year 1950-51, the land was recorded to be owned by Shamlat Deh Hasab Paimana Hakiyat and thereafter from 1955-56 onwards, it was recorded to be owned by Gram Panchayat Deh. So it stands proved that the land in question is owned by the Gram Panchayat. It was further contended that actually the private respondents were in illegal possession of the land in question belonging to Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat filed eviction petitions under Section 7 of the Act of 1961 against them. However, the said petitions were adjourned sine die. It was further contended that the claim of the illega