SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. There is no wrangle amongst the contesting litigants, about a designated revenue rasta, being the nerve centre of the controversy, hence besetting the contesting litigants. The present petitioner is alleged to make an encroachment upon the designated revenue rasta. Therefore, if the alleged encroachment, as made, on the designated revenue rasta, was but proven by a validly drawn demarcation report, through the same becoming tendered, besides, also becoming proven in accordance with law, thereupon, the petitioner was amenable to face an order of eviction from the revenue rasta concerned.

2. However, what pains this Court, is that, the procedure established by law, inasmuch as, the one contemplated in Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’), as appertains to the institution of a petition thereunder(s), for a valid order of eviction being made upon the encroacher(s), upon the Panchayat land(s), rather has not been adopted.

3. Contrarily, there is complete departure, at the instance of the authorities concerned, from the legally contemplated mode (supra), for ensuring the makings of a valid