ORDER Amar Dutt, J. - Mohinder Singh and five others have filed the present petition to challenge the order dated 9.11.1998 passed by the Asstt. Collector First Grade, Pehowa, Annexure P-2 and the order passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra on 27.1999, Annexure P-4. 2. According to the petitioners they are owners in possession of the land in dispute situated in village Bakhli in accordance with their shares since the time of their forefathers as per the jamabandi for the year 1944-45. Gram Panchayat Bakhli, Respondent No. 3 had moved an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) claiming ownership of the land in dispute. This application was contested by the petitioners in their reply in which the question of title was raised on the basis of ownership and continuous possession. The mutation which was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of an administrative letter, according to the petitioners, had no sanctity in law and would not effect ownership rights of the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 had vide order Annexure P.2 observed that prima facie question of title of the respondents were not proved over the land in dispute and adjourned the case for final arguments on 1.12.1998. The petitioners had preferred appeals against this order which was rejected by a consolidated order passed by Respondent No. 1 on 27.1.1999, The orders passed by the Collector and the Assistant Collector First Grade, Respondents No. 1 and 2, which the petitioners seek to challenge in this petition on the basis of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Rajbir and others v. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narwana, (1992-1)101 PLR 123. 3. On behalf of the respondents no reply has been filed and rather Respondent No. 3 has moved an application conceding that while deciding an application under Section 7(3) of the Act, the authorities would be competent to go into the question of title of the parties and decide the same. 4. On behalf of the State of Haryana though no similar application has been moved yet during the course of argument validity of the concession made in Civil Misc. by the counsel for Respondent No. 3 was not controverted. 5. 4. On behalf of the State of Haryana though no similar application has been moved yet during the course of argument validity of the concession made in Civil Misc. by the counsel for Respondent No. 3 was not controverted. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and feel that the grouse of the petitioners against the impugned orders was that while Annexure P.2 the Asstt. Collector had expressed an opinion on the title of the parties without having heard arguments. 6. Since this view runs contrary to the law settled by this Court in Rajbirs case (supra), I feel that Annexure P.4 will have to be set aside as conceded by the respondents in the application dated 30.7.1998 and the Asstt. Collector First Grade, who has expressed an opinion without finally hearing arguments in the case be directed to decide the application afresh after giving the parties an opportunity of placing before him such material evidence as they may, in the circumstances of the case, deem fit. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is accepted and the impugned orders Annexures P.2 and P.4 are set aside and the Asstt. Collector First Grade, Pehowa is directed to decide the application afresh after giving the parties an opportunity of placing before him such material evidence as they may desire, in support of their claim. In the circumstances of the case (sic). Order accordingly.