The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedure of framing issues and providing an opportunity for evidence submission in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to respondents No. 7 to 10 to sanction mutation in favour of the petitioners as per their respective share in terms of order dated 06.04.2016 passed by learned Commissioner-cum-JDC, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 11 -Gram Panchayat, Village Ghungrali Sikhan filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioners from land measuring 57 kanal 7 marlas in village Ghungrali Sikhan. Petitioners filed petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short - 'the Act') seeking declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of land in dispute prior to January, 1950. Respondent No. 8 dismissed the petition under Section 11 of the Act on 14.03.2013, while observing that ownership of land in dispute as per column No. 4 of jamabandi of the year 2008-09, is reflected to be of Mushtarka Zumla Malkaan, which does not come under the definition of Panchayat Deh, therefore, said Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. It was further observed that petitioners, who are reflected as 'Gair Marusi' in the abovesaid jamabandi did not annex any document/proof on the basis of which they staked their claim.

3. Petitioners filed appeal challenging order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development)-cum-Collector, Ludhiana. Learned Commissioner-cum-JDC, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab set aside order dated 14.03.2013 vide order dated 06.04.2016 while holding that the matter had to be decided like a civil suit, which has not done by the learned Collector. Issues, it is observed, were not framed on the basis of pleadings of both the parties nor parties given an opportunity to submit evidence on the basis of issues.

4. It is submitted that CWP-18825-2016 challenging order dated 06.04.2016, filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed on 26.04.2017 and SLP (C) No. 6317/2021 was dismissed as withdrawn by the Gram Panchayat on 08.04.2012. In this view of the matter, petitioners are aggrieved of mutation of respective shares of the petitioners not being entered by the official respondents, despite the matter having attained finality.

5. Short reply by way of affidavit dated 13.08.2022 of Mr. Sarabjit Singh, BDPO, Block Samrala, District Ludhiana has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 9. It is pointed out that learned Appellate Court vide order dated 06.04.2016 did not adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and in fact did not decide the question of ownership and accepted the petition only on the ground that order dated 14.03.2013 was passed without framing of issues and not affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence but at the same time the matter was not remanded to the authority for a decision afresh in accordance with law. Writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed primarily on the ground that an incorrect statement was found to have been made at the time of issuance of notice of motion. SLP (C) No. 6317/2021 was withdrawn on 08.04.2021 with liberty to avail other remedies, if any.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 11 submits that in this view of the matter, application dated 24.04.2021 was filed before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development)-cum-Collector, Ludhiana seeking clarification of order dated 06.04.2016 to the extent that direction should be given to the competent authority after remand of the matter for deciding the same in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Petitioners, it is submitted, have filed reply to the application and have contested the same but have omitted to mention the same in this writ petition, which deserves to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file with their able assistance.

8. Dismissal of the application fil