Jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act requires the petition to be filed by a Panch or an authorized officer, and a misconstituted petition by a private person does not confer jurisdiction to the Collector.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. In respect of the petition land, a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was filed, by respondent No. 4, before the learned Collector concerned,. Thereons through an order made on 21.3.2013, and, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-1, the respondents therein, the petitioner herein, was ordered to be evicted from the petition land. In an appeal, becoming constituted thereagainst before the appellate authority concerned, the latter on appeal No. 319 of 2014, as revealed by Annexure P-3, proceeded to concur with the verdict, enclosed in Annexure P-1. The petitioner becomes aggrieved from the above made concurrent orders against her, by the above referred authorities.

2. Without going into the merits of the case, since the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the respondent concerned, had no locus standi to institute the petition under Section 7 of the Act, before the Collector concerned. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the above argument has any merit, and, also in case it has some meritworthiness, to thereafter draw a conclusion whether the impugned order became rendered, upon a misconstituted petition, and, whether the said purported vice is yet curable, through a direction being made, upon the Gram Panchayat concerned, to after passing of a resolution, authorizing the Sarpanch concerned, to institute an application, within the originally instituted lis, seeking the substitution of one Dayal Singh by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned. The above may ensure that the above purported vice becomes cured, and, also may ensure that the initially instituted petition, becomes well constituted. Initially for determining whether the above made argument has some vigour, it is necessary to gather the import of the provisions, as become carried in the substantive sub-Section (1) thereof. In the above endeavour, it is necessary to extract the mandate, as carried in sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, provisions whereof become ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.

“The Collector shall, on application made to him by a Panchayat or by an officer, duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order, after making such enquiry as he may think fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, put the Panchayat in possession of the land or other immovable property in the Shamilat Deh of that village which vests or as deemed to have been vested in it under this Act and for so doing the Collector may exercise the powers of a revenue court in relation to the execution of a decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.”

3. A reading of the above extracted provisions, as carried in sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, reveals, that the jurisdiction, as become vested in the Collector for well assuming jurisdiction on a petition cast before him, under Section 7 of the Act, would become well rested only when the said petition is cast before him, by a Panch or by an officer duly authorized in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order. Therefore, but necessarily, unless the petition (supra) is cast by Panch or by an officer, duly authorized in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order, thereupon alone the Collector concerned, could validly assume jurisdiction thereto. However, the institution of a petition under Section 7 of the Act, by a private person or by an inhabitant of the mohal concerned, who becomes aggrieved from the delinquent act of the errant concerned, but is obviously a misconstituted petition, nor the Collector concerned, ever is, vested with any jurisdiction to make any valid decision thereons nor the appellate authority concerned, could affirm the initially recorded decision, upon the petitioner's application.

4. Therefore, the above made submission before this Court, by the learned counsel for the pet