Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points:

• Case Details: The case is heard in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided on 18-11-2025, involving a Regular Second Appeal (RSA-3434-1997) and a Civil Writ Petition (CWP-2548-1997) (!) (!) (!) .
• Parties: The appellants are Atma Ram (since deceased) through his Legal Representatives and others, while the respondents include the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur and others (!) (!) .
• Core Dispute: The appellants challenged the dismissal of their suit for permanent injunction regarding ownership of suit land in village Khawaspur, while the respondent Municipal Committee challenged an order by the Consolidation Officer allocating a portion of the land to objectors (!) (!) (!) .
• Ownership Claim: The appellants claimed the land is "Mushtarka Malkan" belonging to the village proprietary body, whereas the respondent claimed ownership vested in the Gram Panchayat and subsequently in the Municipal Committee via Notification Ex.D8 (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Revenue Record Status: It is undisputed that revenue entries classify the suit property as "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Mualqa Hasab Rasad Khewat" (!) .
• Legal Precedent on Ownership: The Court relied on the Full Bench judgment Suraj Bhan and others v. State of Haryana and the Supreme Court judgment The State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, holding that "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" land vests in the village proprietary body, not the Gram Panchayat, unless specifically reserved for common purposes in the consolidation scheme (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Vesting Conclusion: Since the suit land was not reserved for common purposes, it did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and therefore could not devolve upon the Municipal Committee; the respondent's claim of ownership is rejected (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Civil Court Jurisdiction: The Court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding title to "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" land, as the Consolidation Act does not confer power on officers to decide such title questions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Jurisdiction of Consolidation Officer: The Consolidation Officer was found incompetent to pass the order dated 09.03.1995 because the matter was sub judice before the Civil Court and the officer failed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the Municipal Committee, violating principles of natural justice (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Relief of Injunction: Although the appellants are the true owners, the suit for permanent injunction was dismissed because they were not in possession of the land, and a sewage treatment plant had already been established on the property, making restoration of possession impractical (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Article 300-A Violation: The Court found that the Municipal Committee's use of the land for a sewage plant without lawful acquisition or compensation constitutes a violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India (!) .
• Compensation Remedy: While the Court did not determine the quantum of compensation in this suit, it granted the appellants liberty to pursue a separate remedy for compensation and consequential reliefs in the appropriate forum (!) .
• Final Orders: The RSA filed by the appellants was dismissed, and the CWP filed by the Municipal Committee was accepted, setting aside the Consolidation Officer's order as void (!) .