JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J. - At the request of counsel, Civil Writ Petitions No. 19656 and 1996 and 6034 of 1997 are taken on board for final disposal. 2. In CWP No. 19656 of 1996 filed by Gram Panchayat of Village Diwangarh, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, challenge is to order dated 6.8.1996 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (for short the Director) whereby the Director, has allowed petition under Section 43 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by some of the right-holders. Vide impugned order, the Director has remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for mentioning the shares of the land-owners in Khewat owned by Jumla Mushtarqa Malkan and for distribution of land left after using the same for common purpose. In CWP No. 6034 of 1997 filed by some of the right-holders of Village Diwangarh, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, prayer made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to auction the land measuring 19 Acres 3 Marlas because as per order dated 3.9.1996 passed by the Director, the land in question does not vest in Panchayat. 3. In brief, the facts are that respondents No. 3 to 15 in CWP No. 19656 of 1996 and petitioners of CWP No. 6034 of 1997 alleging themselves to be right- holder of village, filed petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director alleging therein that during the consolidation of holdings, excessive cut was imposed on the holdings of Khewatdars of the village for carving out land for common purpose of the Village. It was further alleged that mutation whereby land which was liable to be distributed among the right-holders, was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. It was their case that the land was not Shamlat Deh but was carved out by imposing excessive cut on the holdings of the right-holders. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the Gram Panchayat and some other respondents who were likely to be affected by the order. Gram Panchayat appeared and contested the petition. It was pleaded by the Gram Panchayat that the land was not deducted from the holdings of Khewatdars. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the Gram Panchayat and some other respondents who were likely to be affected by the order. Gram Panchayat appeared and contested the petition. It was pleaded by the Gram Panchayat that the land was not deducted from the holdings of Khewatdars. In fact, it is being used by the Gram Panchayat for common purpose of the village and Gram Panchayat is the absolute owner of the land as it is Shamlat Deh. Vide order dated 6.8.1996 (Annexure P-3), the Director accepted the petition and ordered distribution of land among its various right-holders. Hence, Civil Writ Petition No. 19656 of 1996 challenging order dated 6.8.1996 (Annexure P-3). 5. In CWP No. 6034 of 1997 filed by the right-holders, it is contended that in view of order dated 3.9.1996 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Director, land in question does not vest in Panchayat and the same cannot be put to auction. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that order dated 6.8.1996 (Annexure P-3) is not sustainable in law. 7. From the reading of order dated 6.8.1996, I find that the question before the Director was whether the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh and as such was owned by the Gram Panchayat or by the right-holders of the village. The Director came to the conclusion that excessive cut was imposed on the holdings of right-holders for carving out land for common purpose of the village. He thus found that only land measuring 51 Kanals 15 Marlas was required and the remaining land i.e. 40 Kanals 18 Marlas was not required and liable to be distributed among the right-holders. The finding of the Director that the land was not Shamlat Deh cannot be sustained because the Director had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh or not. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Village Sidh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 313 which reads as under :- "It is not disputed that consolidation proceedings were completed in the village in the year 1953-54. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Village Sidh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 313 which reads as under :- "It is not disputed that consolidation proceedings were completed in the village in the year 1953-54. It is further not disputed that prior to consolidation proceedings, the entry regarding Khewat No. 78 measuring 1000 Bighas 16 Biswas was made in the Jamabandi as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. It is also not disputed that after the consolidation, the entry in the revenue record was in similar terms. The Additional Director, Consolidation by the order dated May, 1, 1990 changed the mutation entries in the revenue record and distributed part of the land amongst the right-holders. We are of the view that after the enforcement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the question of ownership could only be decided by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. Mr. Palli, learned Counsel for the right-holders has contended that the area which was bachat area was distributed amongst the right-holders. It is a question to be decided by the Collector. The right-holders may raise all the points, if they wish to, before the Collector. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Director dated May 1, 1990 and remand the case to the Collector, District Patiala to decided the case afresh in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. No orders as to costs." Also in Gram Panchayat Village Nurpur v. State of Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 268 Supreme Court, the view taken by the Supreme Court was that the Additional Director has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in regard to land being Shamlat Deh. 8. Following the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the view that Civil Writ Petition No. 19656 of 1996 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is so ordered. Consequently, order dated 6.8.1996 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. Resultantly, Civil Writ Petition No. 6034 of 1997 is dismissed. Respondents No. 3 to 15 in CWP No. 19656 of 1996 and petitioners of CWP No. 6034 of 1997 may, if so advised, seek their remedy before the Collector in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Writ petition allowed.