JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

The Gram Panchayat, Sirsi through Govardhan resident of village Sirsi, Tehsil and District Karnal instituted against the present petitioners case No.79/DDPO. The above case was instituted under the provisions of Section 7 (2) of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

2. The petitioner therein made an averment, that the respondents therein, who are the petitioners in the instant writ petitioner, are on unauthorizedly, and, illegally making cultivation of the petition lands, as, the said land is described in the revenue records, as Shamlat Deh, and, resultantly the petitioners hold no lawful title either as owners or as lawful cultivators over the petition lands. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade through an order drawn thereons, on 14.01.2005 after granting the asked for relief in the petition (supra), made a direction, upon the respondents concerned, to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed lands to the panchayat concerned.

3. Despite the above order becoming pronounced on 14.01.2005, yet only on 04.04.2019 the aggrieved concerned, preferred thereagainst an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal. The statutory appeal as raised before the Competent Appellate Authority was palpably a time bared appeal, as it became instituted after an elongated lapse of about 14 years, since the making of the verdict by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade in the year 2005. Though, the said appeal was accompanied by an application cast under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT rather purportedly explaining the said period of delay, on the premise that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the LIMITATION ACT , as the appellants had bonafidely adopted to re-course the remedy of filing a making civil suit before the learned Civil Court concerned, claiming therein the rendition of a declaratory decree in respect of the petition lands.

4. It is apparent on a reading of the records, that the said civil suit was unsuccessfully prosecuted by the plaintiffs upto the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. Now it is to be determined whether the adoption of the above civil remedies, hence before the learned Civil Court concerned, at the instance of the petitioners, does but fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the LIMITATION ACT , and/or, whether the adoption of the above civil remedies, could be well considered to be a bonafidely adopted recourse, whereupon this Court may be constrained to pronounce that the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal by the learned Appellate Court, on the ground of limitation rather became invalidly drawn.

6. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, the petitioners cannot draw the benefit of Section 14 of the LIMITATION ACT , as they were well aware about the provisions of the Act, especially when through the Gram Panchayat concerned, re-coursing the mandate of Section 7 of the Act, rather an affirmative order became made on the case No.79/DDPO, by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. Moreover, since the petitioners were arrayed as party-respondents therein, and, also when it is apparent on a reading of the order, as made on 14.01.2005 by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal, that they had even raised therein, a question of title which however, become decided against the present petitioners, thereupon it was obviously not open for them to yet proceed, to adopt the remedy of making a civil suit, rather before the learned Civil Co