ORDER Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - We have two petitions. The issue is one. Have the petitioners encroached upon the land belonging to the Panchayat ? Counsel are agreed that both the petitions can be disposed of by one order. They have referred to the facts in C.W.P. No. 14318 of 1998. These may be briefly noticed. 2. The respondent-Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon land measuring 5 kanals and 17 marlas. It was alleged that he was cultivating this land and had put sticks etc. since the last 5 to 10 years. It was prayed that he be ejected and also fined. 3. The petitioner was given notice of the application. He filed a reply. He inter alia averred that the land as described in the application "is Gair Mumkin Hill and ......is not cultivable...... The answering respondents (the present petitioner) never occupied the alleged land measuring 5 kanals 17 marlas nor he is in possession of the said land in dispute". He further asserted that "in the revenue record, the possession of the applicant (the Gram Panchayat) has been shown." 4. The matter was considered by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul. Vide order dated April 25, 1997 he held that "the defendant has illegally occupied an area of 5 kanals 10 marlas of the disputed land in khasra No. 115, and 7 marlas in khasra No. 125 by cultivation and putting sticks etc. ........Therefore, the defendant is ordered to be ejected from 5 kanals 17 marlas of encroached area ........The defendant due to encroachment is fined @ Rs. 5,000/- per hectare per year from the date of filing this application". A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P-4. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector. He dismissed the appeal with the observation that "according to the report of measurement dated 11.10.1992 Ex.P-2, the appellant has illegally occupied the disputed land by putting sticks and by cultivation which was certified by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade after visiting the spot. It is not proper to give the appellant more opportunity to lead his evidence. No interference is called for in order under appeal dated 25.4.1997.....". A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P5. 5. It is not proper to give the appellant more opportunity to lead his evidence. No interference is called for in order under appeal dated 25.4.1997.....". A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P5. 5. The petitioner challenges the validity of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector. He alleges that according to the Jamabandi for the year 1992-93, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P3, the land is being cultivated by the respondent-Gram Panchayat. Still further, the petitioner has also alleged that "respondent No. 1 viz. the Assistant Collector never visited the spot ........" and yet it has been observed that the order has been passed after spot inspection. He, thus, prays that the impugned orders be quashed. 6. Despite opportunity, no written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The factual averments have not been controverted. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 8. Mr. Mittal has contended that the petitioners are not in possession of the disputed land. The respondent-Gram Panchayat had filed the petition only to harass the petitioners. He has further pointed out that in the connected case a specific averment has been made in paragraph 5 that the respondent has based his decision on "the measurement report dated 11.10.1992. It is submitted that neither this report was called in the present case which was instituted on 15.10.1996, nor this measurement was made in presence of the petitioner". Thus, the counsel submits that the order is based on evidence which was never put to the petitioners. 9. Mr. Rathee, appearing for the respondent-Gram Panchayat, contends that the petitioners shall be deemed to be in possession as it was found that sticks had been put around the area in dispute. 10. The short question is - Have the petitioners in these two cases encroached upon any land belonging to the respondent-Gram Panchayat ? 11. Admittedly, the case of the Panchayat is that they had encroached upon the land for a period of about 5 to 10 years preceding the date of the filing of the petition. Thus, at the lowest, the encroachment should have taken place in or about the year 1991. Despite that, not a single khasra girdawari was brought on record to indicate that the petitioners were in possession and that they had cultivated the land in dispute. 12. Thus, at the lowest, the encroachment should have taken place in or about the year 1991. Despite that, not a single khasra girdawari was brought on record to indicate that the petitioners were in possession and that they had cultivated the land in dispute. 12. Why was the khasra girdwari not produced ? 13. The reasons appears to be clearly apparent from the record. The Jamabandi shows the possession of the Panchayat. A copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 is on record as Annexure P3. This document clearly belies the claim of the Panchayat that the petitioners had encroached upon the land in dispute. Still further, despite being asked, learned Counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat has not been able to refer to even an iota of evidence on record which may even remotely suggest that the petitioners had put any sticks around the land which was alleged to be in their unauthorised occupation. Moreover, it is not disputed that the land is a hill whereupon no cultivation is possible. Such being the situation, we find that the claim made on behalf of the petitioners that they are not in occupation of the land deserves to be sustained. 14. Mr. Rathee contends that the measurement report clearly belies the claim of the petitioners. He has referred to the impugned orders and submitted that the report dated October 11, 1992 had been duly placed on the record. The counsel is right to the extent that the report has been referred to in the impugned orders. However, it is the admitted position that the respondent- Gram Panchayat had filed the application under Section 7 of the Act in the year 1996. There was no reference to the report. Still further, the petitioner has categorically averred in para 5 of C.W.P. No. 14319 of 1998 that the measurement was never made in his presence. This averments has not been controverted. That being so, it is clear that the report was prepared without any notice to the petitioner. He had been given no opportunity to contest it. It is also conceded by Mr. Rathee that neither of the petitioners was confronted with this report when they appeared as witnesses in support of their claim. In such a situation, the respondent authorities have acted illegally in basing their decision on the report. 15. Faced with this situation, Mr. He had been given no opportunity to contest it. It is also conceded by Mr. Rathee that neither of the petitioners was confronted with this report when they appeared as witnesses in support of their claim. In such a situation, the respondent authorities have acted illegally in basing their decision on the report. 15. Faced with this situation, Mr. Rathee submits that the Assistant Collector had visited the spot and then passed the order. He refers to the order dated April 25, 1997 passed by the Assistant Collector. A copy of this order is at Annexure P4 with C.W.P. No. 14318 of 1998. A perusal of this order shows that the Assistant Collector had observed that "the spot was inspected on 25.4.1997". Thus, it appears that he claims to have inspected the site on the date he delivered the decision. 16. Did he give any notice to the petitioners before doing so ? 17. Even the authority does not say that any notice was given. In fact, the petitioners have made a categorical averment in para 5 that "no inspection was made in presence of the petitioner by respondent No. 1". This categorical averment has not been denied. 18. In view of the above, it is clear that the impugned orders are based on evidence which was never put to the petitioners. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners had encroached upon any land as alleged by the respondent-Gram Panchayat. Thus, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. These are quashed. 19. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we allow both the writ petitions. The petitioners are also entitled to their costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/- in each case. Petitions allowed.