Judgment 1. Plaintiffs Ajmer Singh and Bhaghel Singh instituted suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat of village, Balad Kalan through its Sarpanch and Naib Tehsildar, Bhawani-garh receiver restraining the latter from auctioning the land, as detailed in the heading of the plaint, situated in village Balad Kalan, by way of lease for the year, 1994-95. It is alleged in the plaint that land in dispute was carved out during consolidation proceedings. It was allotted to Ajmer Singh and Bhaghel Singh by the consolidation Authorities with a view to making up deficiency in their holding. Plaintiffs were taking steps to take its possession. The Gram Panchayat and the Naib Tehsildr, Bhawanigarh (receiver) threatened to auction the land in suit on lease for the year 1994-95 if the said threat gets materialised, plaintiffs interest and right would be jeopardise. 2. The Gram Panchayat contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that the plaintiffs had been allowed other full area in lieu of their preconsolidation land, land in suit is part of shamilat deh. It could not be allotted to the plaintiffs and was not allotted to them. In any case if the alleged allotment is proved, the same is illegal and does not effect the rights of the defendant-Gram Panchayat. 3. Plaintiffs suit was that during consolidation some land was wrongly deducted at the time of allotment of land to the right holders in order to make up deficiency, they filed revision under Sec. 42, of the Eastr Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (herein after to be referred as Act), which was accepted by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, Chandigarh. The Gram Panchayat went in writ to High Court, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, dispute again arose between the defendants and the right holders regarding the possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat including the suit land. SDM, Sangrur attached the land under Sections 145/146, Cr.P.C.land is still under attachment. Land in dispute was distributed by the Consolidation Officer in the month of March, 1994. The possession was to be given to the right holders. Plaintiffs applied for the possession of the land under this said act. On receipt of notice under Sec. 23(2) of the Act, defendants fixed the date for auctioning of the land by way of lease for the year 1994-95, which they cannot do. 4. The possession was to be given to the right holders. Plaintiffs applied for the possession of the land under this said act. On receipt of notice under Sec. 23(2) of the Act, defendants fixed the date for auctioning of the land by way of lease for the year 1994-95, which they cannot do. 4. As per the Gram Panchayat, the plaintiffs, were allotted 30 bighas 6 biswas of land during consolidation. They accepted this area to be corrected, Plaintiffs had no right to the allotment of the land in suit because it is land of the shamilat deh. Consolidation authorities had no right to allot land kept for the purpose of shamilat deh. Any allotment of shamilat land to the plaintiffs by the consolidation authorities is illegal and void vesting them with no right of ownership. As per the Gram Panchayat, land in suit it is given to different chakotedars on lease on the basis of open auction. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of permanent of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2.Relief. 6. On the conclusion of the trial, Sub Judge IInd Class, Sangpur vide order dated 15-5-1995 decreed the plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from auctioning the land in suit as detailed in the heading of the plaint for the year, 1994-95 by way of open auction in view of her finding that they are owners in possession in view of the order dated 30-3-1983 passed by the Additional Director (Consolidation of Holdings) Punjab, Chandigarh vide which Khasra Nos. 1232/6-5 1233/6-5, 1238/4-19, 1239/5-16, 1240/7-4, 1241/9-3 1249/6-5 were allotted to Ajmer Singh and Bhagel Singh and that mutation was sanctioned in their favour qua this land which was incorporated in jamabandi for the year 1992-1993. Writ file by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed and special leave petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was also dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court against the order of Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 30-3-1983. 7. Gram Panchayat went in appeal. Writ file by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed and special leave petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was also dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court against the order of Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 30-3-1983. 7. Gram Panchayat went in appeal. Appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 17-8-1998 in view of his finding that since the year, 1994-1995 stood already expired in the year, 1998 it would be futile restraining the Gram Panchayat from auctioning the land in suit for the year, 1994-95 as for the year 1994-1995, lease must have taken place already. He, however, upheld the finding of the learned subordinate Judge on the material point viz. that the land had been allotted to the plaintiffs and they were owners. 8. Not satisfied, the Gram Panchayat has come up in further appeal to this Court. 9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat that in fact it is the Gram Panchayat which is recorded as owner of the suit land in the revenue record. In jamabandi for the year, 1987-1988, the suit land is recorded in the name of the Gram Panchayat Balad Kalan. It was submitted that in the revenue record in the ownership column, it is recorded "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zasrey Khewat" and in the column of cultivation, it is recorded as "Maqbooza Malkan". Vide mutation No. 1411 dated 20-7-1956, land was transferred in the name of the Nagar Panchayat. It was submitted that the order of Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, Chandigarh dated 30-3-1983 which according to the plaintiffs is the basis of their claim to ownership is no effect as the same is without jurisdiction. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings had no jurisdiction to determine the question of ownership. It was submitted that it was not within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to decide the question whether the land is not "shamilat deh". Such a question can be decided by the Collector under Sections 11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 . It was submitted that it was not within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to decide the question whether the land is not "shamilat deh". Such a question can be decided by the Collector under Sections 11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 . In support of this submission, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat drew my attention to Gram Panchayat Nurpur V/s. State of Punjab, 1997 (1) PLJ 268 where it was held that Additional Director Consolidation has no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute is "shamilat deh" or not, Jamabandii entry prior to consolidation reads "Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat" and in cultivation column entry is "Maqbooza Malkan". Question whether land is "Shamlat Deh" or not can only be decided by authorities under Sec. 11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 . 10. In Gram Panchayat Village Sidh V/s. Additional, Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, 1997 (1) Pun LJ 313, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that where land was recorded in Jamabandi as "Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat" prior to consolidation proceedings as also after consolidation, question of ownership can only be decided by Collector under Sec. 11 Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. Plea that are distributed amongst right-holders was Bachat area is to be decided by Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 ". It was submitted that the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab dated 30-3-1983 was without jurisdiction and as such nullity and it is fundamental principle that a decree by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity can be attacked whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. In support of this submitted, learned counsel drew my attention to Kiran Singh V/s. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340. 11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings dated 30-3-1983 was not an erroneous order but an order which he had no jurisdiction to pass and as such it was a nullity. 11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings dated 30-3-1983 was not an erroneous order but an order which he had no jurisdiction to pass and as such it was a nullity. If the passing of the order had been within his jurisdiction and he had passed a wrong order, then that wrong order could not be attacked in execution or in collateral proceedings. It could be attacked in appeal.In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Urban Improvement, Jodhpur V/s. Gokul Narain, 1996 (4) JT SC 446 : (AIR 1996 SC 1819). There can be no quarrel with this proposition of law sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant at the bar, Decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and it will remain nullity and its being nullity can be question in execution or even in collateral proceedings. It can be attacked anywhere where it is sought to be enforced. When Court has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it can decide rightly as well as wrongly. Wrong decision is not nullity. 12. Suffice it to say, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant suffers from a grave fallacy inasmuch as plaintiffs were entitled to be allotted that much area which was their ownership prior to consolidation and after consolidation, they could not be allotted lesser area. In this case, however, during repartition some area was deducted out of the area allotted to them, in order to make up the deficiency in their area, plaintiffs filed revision under Sec. 47 of the Act with the prayer that the deficiency in their area be made good from the land of the Gram Panchayat. Their revision was allowed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab Chandigarh. Writ of the Gram Panchayat failed and the Gram Panchayat failed before the Hon ble Apex Court as well. 13. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat submitted that the Gram Panchayat auction this land every year. Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to auction this land when this land has been held to be ownership of the plaintiffs by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings vide order dated 30-3-1983. 14. In view of what has been said above, Gram Panchayat has no case. Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to auction this land when this land has been held to be ownership of the plaintiffs by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings vide order dated 30-3-1983. 14. In view of what has been said above, Gram Panchayat has no case. It has no right to auction the land in suit when the suit land was allotted to the plaintiffs by the consolidation authorities as far back in March, 1983. Possession is with the receiver. Receiver will deliver possession to the plaintiffs-respondents. 15. Appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat has no legs to stand upon. It is accordingly dismissed. Finding on issue No. 1 recorded by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Sangrur is restored in its entirety.Appeal dismissed.