The main legal point established is that previous decisions under relevant acts should be given due consideration, and procedural requirements akin to a regular Civil Court must be followed in similar cases.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. -

Factual background

1. Petitioner Som Raj (since deceased) instituted a title suit bearing case No. 14-A of 2006, before the learned Collector concerned. Through a decision, made thereons, on 14.8.2014 (Annexure P-2), the learned Collector concerned, dismissed the said title suit of the petitioner (since deceased), whereins, the plaintiff claimed the relief qua his being declared as owner in possession of the suit land. The decision (supra), led the plaintiff therein to prefer an appeal bearing No. 304 of 2014, before the learned appellate authority concerned. During the pendency of the appeal (supra), the demise of petitioner/appellant-Som Nath occurred, but then he was substituted by his LR. On the said statutory appeal, as revealed by Annexure P-3, a decision was made on 1.2.2019, whereby the decision, carried in Annexure P-2, thus became affirmed. Resultantly, the petitioner, who is the legal representative of Som Nath, becomes aggrieved from the above concurrently made verdicts of dismissal, as became made by the authorities below, upon the title suit (supra), and, is led to institute thereagainst the instant petition, before this Court.

Reasons for accepting the instant petition

2. Prior to the institution of the title suit (supra), in the year 2006, the Gram Panchayat concerned, instituted before the learned Collector concerned, and, against the petitioner herein, a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the PVCL Act, 1961). Through a decision made on the said petition, verdict whereof, is enclosed in Annexure P-1, the learned Collector concerned, declined the espoused therein relief to the Gram Panchayat concerned. The said declining of relief, to the Gram Panchayat concerned, by the Collector concerned, became rested, upon the factum, that the jamabandis relating to the petition land, hence commencing since 1911-12, but reflecting, that the defendant therein, who is the petitioner herein (since deceased), thus was holding cultivating possession of the petition land(s). Furthermore, it was also therein concluded, that the said possession, became also affirmed by the Consolidation Officer concerned, in the finalized consolidation scheme, as became drawn by him. The said decision was made prior to a decision, being made through Annexure P-2, upon, the petitioner's title suit bearing case No. 14-A of 2006.

The apposite exclusionary clause, as carried in Section 2(g)(5)(viii) of the PVCL Act, 1961, is applicable to the petition land(s), as in previous lis comprised in Annexure P-1, credence has been assigned to the consonant therewith jamabandis.

3. The above made decision, enclosed in Annexure P-1, though was made on a petition cast under Section 7 of the PVCL Act, 1961, by the Gram Panchayat concerned, before the Collector concerned, whereins, the petitioner (since deceased) became impleaded as a respondent. Thus, when the said verdict has remained unchallenged. Therefore, the above referred to conclusions, as carried therein, if they have acquired conclusivity, thereupon, the effect of the conclusions (supra), thus would not become prefunctorily whittled down. Nonetheless, though conclusivity, if any, as assignable to Annexure P-1, rather was amenable to be scuttled, by the Gram Panchayat concerned, even in the subsequent thereto instituted title suit, of the petitioner, before the Collector concerned. However, a reading of the concurrently made verdicts, as respectively comprised in Annexure P-2, and, Annexure P-3, do not unfold, that the Gram Panchayat concerned, took to adduce evidence, but suggestive, that the findings, and, conclusions (supra), even if assumingly they acquire conclusivity, were not rested, upon a worthy appraisal of all the relevant documentary evidence, given such relevant documentary evidence, rather becoming suppressed from the authority, who made Annexure P-1. Contrarily, the authorities concerned, appear to assign