JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Factual Background.

Gram Panchayat Hedo Bet instituted File No. 25/Collector, on 09.11.2005, before the Collector concerned. The said case was instituted against the respondents therein, petitioners herein. Moreover, the said case was instituted under the provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, hereinafter for short called 'the PVCL Act'. Therein a claim was raised that the respondents in the said petition are in illegal and unauthorized possession of the petition lands comprised in Khewat No. 75, Khatuni No. 85, 107, 98, 132, 91, 144, 113, 136, Khasra Nos. 13/15 (7-16), 16(5-5), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), 24 (7-14), 14/10(8-0), 20(8-0), 21(8-0), 15/6(7-8), 14(8-0), 15(7-8), 17(8-0), situated at village Hedobet, Had Bast No. 448, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.

2. The learned Collector concerned, through an order made thereons on 22.03.2012, (Annexure P-7), after assigning credence to a demarcation report drawn on 28.10.2005, concluded that the respondents in case (supra), had made encroachments upon the land owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat concerned. Thus, ordered for the eviction of the respondents from the petition lands.

3. The aggrieved respondents instituted there-against appeal No. 129/2012 before the Appellate Authority concerned, and the said Appellate Authority through a decision made on 18.12.2015, on the appeal (supra), decision whereof become enclosed in Annexure P-8, after concurring with the decision, as became earlier recorded by the Collector concerned, thus, dismissed the said statutory appeal.

4. Admittedly, the above stated khasra numbers are entered in the revenue records to be owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat concerned. However, the respondents though did not claim title to the said khasra numbers, but claimed title to the property enclosed in Rect. No. 16, Khasra No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13/2/2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, Rect No. 18, Khasra No. 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, Rect No. 15, Khasra No. 24, 25, Rect. No. 16, Khasra No. 8, 9, 12, 13/1, 13/2/1, Rect. No. 17, Khasra No. 16/24, Rect. No. 25 Khasra No. 1, 2, 3 and 2, 3, 9, Rect. No. 17, Khasra No. 10, 11, 12/1, 12/2, 13, 14 Khewat No. 6, 7, but on the basis of registered deeds of conveyance becoming executed, in their favour by their respective vendors concerned. However, the said executed registered deeds of conveyance did not become questioned. Therefore, the respondents concerned, in case No. 25/Collector, made a claim for theirs' holding valid title to those khasra numbers, as become mentioned in the said unchallenged executed registered deeds of conveyance in their respective favour by their respective vendors. Obviously, the disputed khasra numbers over which the respondents in case No.25/Collector, are alleged to make encroachments, thus are those khasra numbers, which are admittedly owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, the demarcation report of 28.10.2005, as became assigned credence by both the authorities below thus, does assume a grave importance.

5. A reading of the impugned orders, as became concurrently drawn against the petitioners herein, by both the statutory authorities concerned, thus reveals that though both assigned credence to the said demarcation report. However, there is no complete discussion in both the impugned verdicts, about the said demarcation report becoming drawn in accordance with law, by its author, nor is there any further discussion whether after the aggrieved therefrom, being permitted to cross examine, the author of the said demarcation report, thereupon, the aggrieved ensuring theirs' making elicitations from him which may ultimately impinge, upon, the correctness of the demarcation report (supra), as became prepared, and, also became relied upon, by both the statutory authorities below. Moreover, on a reading of the orders drawn by both the authorities below, reveals that the demarcation rep