The conclusive evidentiary worth of revenue records and mutation of ownership in favor of the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, played a crucial role in determining the rights of the petitioners over the disputed lands.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Since both these writ petitions arise from a common verdict (Annexure P-10) (in CWP-28137-2017), and, Annexure P-9 (in CWP-3963- 2018) respectively, as became made on 14.11.2017, by the learned Collector concerned, thereby both are amenable for being decided through a common verdict. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP-28137-2017.

2. The petitioners become aggrieved from Annexure P-10, whereby, the appellate authority concerned made a verdict of dismissal on 14.11.2017, upon, Case No.21/Appeal/VCL.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued before this Court, that despite a well laid question of title erupting amongst the contesting litigants concerned, yet the said laid question of title neither becoming discussed, nor becoming adjudicated upon, in the impugned order. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners argues, that the above infirmity gripping the impugned order, requires that, after the said order becoming quashed and set aside, this Court proceeding to remand the lis to the statutory authority below, so as to enable it to remake a judgment on the said purported question of title, as emerges amongst the contesting litigants.

REASONS FOR REJECTING THE SUBMISSION(S) OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

4. Initially, a verdict of eviction became recorded by the learned Assistant Collector concerned, upon, Case No.22/7 V.C.L. along with other connected therewith eviction petitions. The said verdict of eviction became pronounced on 19.02.2014 (Annexure P-7). The verdict (supra) became appealed before the learned appellate authority concerned, who however, as unfolded by Annexure P-8, after rejecting the appeal bearing No.29/EA/VCL and the other connected therewith appeals, thus affirmed the verdict of eviction (supra).

5. Annexure P-8 became challenged at the instance of the aggrieved before this Court, through the institution of CWP-3599-2015 and another connected therewith writ petition. Through a decision made on the writ petition(s) (supra), on 18.07.2017, this Court, after formulating certain issues in paragraph 8 of its verdict, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thereafter proceeded to set aside the impugned order (Annexure P8), but with an order of remand being made on the learned appellate authority concerned, to make a decision upon the issues formulated in paragraph 8 (supra). The said decision on the remanded lis, was directed to be made within a period of three months, from the date of the litigants concerned making their respective appearances, before the statutory appellate authority concerned.

“(8) Both the parties though have now placed on record some revenue record but having regard to the fact that the Authorities below are required to discuss the entries in the revenue record and then determine the nature and apparent ownership of the land, it is not expedient for this Court to express any views in relation to those entries. Suffice it to say that even in the summary eviction proceedings, the authorities are required to determine:-

(i) Whether the above-stated Khasra numbers are 'Jumla Mustarka Malkan' or 'Shamlat Deh'?

(ii) If so, whether such land or its management and control vests in the Gram Panchayat?

(iii) If not, whether the petitioners are in individual and exclusive possession of these Khasra numbers and if so since when?

(iv) What is the legal effect of such possession, if any?”

6. In pursuance to the decision (supra) becoming recorded by this Court, the impugned Annexure P-10 became drawn by the learned District Collector, Jhajjar. The drawing of Annexure P-10 occurred on 14.11.2017. A reading of the impugned Annexure reveals, that the learned appellate authority concerned, after evaluating the evidence adduced in respect of the issues, as formulated by this Court, thus returned a decision adversarial to the petitioners.

7. Therefore, it is deemed imp