JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - We have a bunch of four petitions. The grievance is common. The petitioners allege that they have been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute without the grant of a due and reasonable opportunity. Counsel for the parties have referred to the factual position in CWP No. 17089 of 1998. The facts may be briefly noticed. 2. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 with the allegation that Manphool-the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was in unauthorised occupation of the land. When the matter was placed before the Collector, he observed that notices were issued to the respondents but they had "refused to accept". Consequently, a proclamation was made. Yet, the respondents had not appeared. As a result, he proceeded ex parte and allowed the application vide his order dated August 1, 1996. Manphool-the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated May 11, 1998. Copies of the two orders have been produced as Annexures P-2 and P-4 with the writ petition. The petitioners allege that they as also their predecessor-in-interest have been in occupation of land for a long period. They could not have been ordered to be evicted without the grant of a due and reasonable opportunity. No notice was served. The petitioners never refused. On these premises, the petitioners pray that the impugned orders be set aside. 3. The writ petitions were filed in the year 1998. The respondents had put in appearance on March 22, 1999. Despite repeated opportunities, no written statement has been filed in any of the cases by the State or by the Gram Panchayat. 4. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the four cases submits that the impugned orders were passed without service of any notice. The petitioners had never refused to accept notice. No proclamation was made in the village. Thus, the authorities had erred in proceeding ex parte. 6. Mr. P.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No. 3 controverts the claim made on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that there has been no failure of justice. 7. Admittedly, the respondents have not controverted the categoric averments made in the petitions. No proclamation was made in the village. Thus, the authorities had erred in proceeding ex parte. 6. Mr. P.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No. 3 controverts the claim made on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that there has been no failure of justice. 7. Admittedly, the respondents have not controverted the categoric averments made in the petitions. Despite opportunity, no written statement has been filed. Even the record has not been produced. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that notice had not been served and that they had no opportunity to contest the proceedings, has to be accepted. Resultantly, we find that the action of the respondents in deciding the matter without service of notice was violative of the principles of natural justice. 8. In this situation, we consider it appropriate to avoid making any comments on the merits lest the interest of either party should be prejudiced. We set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter of the Collector for a fresh decision after the grant of a due and reasonable opportunity to the parties. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector, Ferozepur viz. respondent No. 2 on February 1, 2001. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. No costs. Petitions allowed.