JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - We have three petitions filed by three persons. The issue is one viz - Is the land in dispute Shamlat Deh or a part of the Abadi Deh ? Therefore, all three cases can be disposed of by a common order. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in CWP No. 9589 of 1998. 2. The petitioner claims that he has been in possession of the land measuring 5 Biswas (approximately 200 Sq. Yds.) for the last more than 50 years. He filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Vide order dated July 25, 1997, the District Development and Panchayat Officer exercising the powers of the Collector held as under : "After perusing the record on the file, hearing the arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and after inspection of the spot I am of the opinion that the land-in-dispute is Abadi Deh and is within Lal Lakeer. The plaintiff had constructed mangers for his animals, pucca latrines and raised ruris, which shows that the possession of the plaintiff over the land-in dispute is very old. This fact has been verified by Naib Tehsilder (Development) vide his report dated 12.6.1996. Apart from this the land-in-dispute has not been kept reserved for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 2(g)(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act." 3. Thus, the claim of the petitioner was upheld. Aggrieved by the order the Panchayat filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, Development. Vide order dated May 12, 1998, he allowed the appeal. It was inter alia observed that "from the documents on the record Khewatdars of the village had kept this land reserved for school ground and this land has been used as ground by the children due to its proximity to the school". 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. They are agreeing that the factual position in all the three cases is identical. 6. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the land has never been reserved as a playground for the school. There is no document on the record, which may indicate that the Khewatdars (land owners) had kept this land for being used as a school ground. 6. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the land has never been reserved as a playground for the school. There is no document on the record, which may indicate that the Khewatdars (land owners) had kept this land for being used as a school ground. On this basis it is contended that the appellate authority has erred in reversing the decision of the Collector. 7. Mr. Baljit Puri, appearing for the respondent-Panchayat admits that there is no evidence on the file to show that the land owners had reserved the land for being used as a playground for the school children. 8. In view of the above, it is clear that the basic ground on which the Commissioner had accepted the appeal is not borne out from the evidence on the file. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. We set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on the basis of the evidence, which may be on the file. It is further directed that status qua as existing today on the spot shall be maintained. 10. No other point has been raised. 11. It may be observed that we have desisted from making any detailed observations to avoid any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner or the respondent. The parties would be at liberty to refer to the evidence on the file and to urge their respective claims. They would also be given an opportunity to adduce any further evidence, if they so desire. No costs. Petition accepted.