JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Factual background

Earlier to the institution of the instant writ petition, before this Court, whereby a challenge is made to the drawings of Annexure P-20, and, to the drawing of Annexure P-25, the petitioner (since deceased), through his LRs, accessed this Court, through theirs filing CWP No. 7067 of 1988. Through a decision made thereons, on 23.1.2012, this Court after allowing the said writ petition, had quashed and set aside the order(s), as, made respectively on 4.9.1987, and, on 6.6.1988, thus as became respectively became made by the authorities concerned, but with a mandate, upon, the Collector/Divisional Deputy Director Panchayat, SAS Nagar, Mohali to decide the lis afresh, but in accordance with law. Therefore, the decisions, as respectively carried in Annexure P-20, and in Annexure P-25, are made in pursuance to the above order of remand, as became made by this Court, after its allowing, on 23.1.2012, CWP (supra).

2. The gravamen of the entire contest, as emerges amongst the contesting litigants, is centered, upon the essential factum relating to the consequentiality, and, the legality of the verdict, as made by the learned Civil Judge concerned, (Annexure P-7) whereby, the suit of the plaintiff, with impleadment thereins of the Gram Panchayat concerned, thus for joint possession in respect of the khasra numbers, as detailed thereins, hence became decreed. Moreover, the fulcrum of the entire lis, is hinged upon, as respectively contended by the counsels appearing before this Court, that the said Annexure is a sequel of collusion, and, fraud practiced, amongst the plaintiff thereins, and, the defendants (supra), and/or is free from the above vices.

3. Both the statutory authorities below, through theirs making the impugned orders, as become enclosed in the above annexures, though, concluded, that the judgment, and decree, as made by the learned Civil Court concerned, verdict whereof becomes enclosed in Annexure P-7, and, which became also affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court concerned, given, uncontestedly, thus for want of a regular second appeal, being raised thereagainst before this Court, thus though prima facie acquires but a conclusive, and, binding effect. However, the statutory authorities below declined to assign credence to Annexure P-7, but on the ground, that it became stained with a vice of fraud, and, collusion rather becoming practiced inter se the contesting litigants concerned.

Statutory authorities below discarded Annexure P-7 on the premise that it was obtained by fraud and collusion inter se the plaintiff thereins and the Gram Panchayat concerned.

4. In making the above conclusions, the statutory authorities below had assigned the reasons, that since no acerbic contest emerged from the defendants in the said suit, besides also when cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of truth, if any, as was assignable to the jamabandi, drawn for the year 1942-43, and, to which in the said suit Ex. P-10, thus became assigned, therefore the said judgment and decree was a collusively obtained decree. The above conclusion was made irrespective of the factum, that though in Ex. P-10, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, namely, Chhaju, was shown to cultivate the suit land, but free from encumbrance of his being a chakotedar under the recorded land owner concerned. Moreover, though in Annexure P-7, a conclusion became arrived, that thus when but within the ambit of the apposite exclusionary clause, to the definition of shamilat lands, as becomes engrafted in Section 2 (g)(5)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'PVCL Act, 1961'), the suit land in the said civil suit, became thus saved from vestment in the panchayat deh concerned. As a sequel, though the learned Civil Court concerned, proceeded to make the claimed for decree of joint possession in favour of the plaintiff-Barkha Ram. However, yet the authorities below appear to p