ORDER V.K. Jhanji, J. - At the request of counsel, Civil Writ Petition No. 4928 of 1984 is taken on board for final disposal. 2. In this writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat Kakra, Tehsil and District Sangrur, challenge is to order dated 9.8.1984 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (for short the Additional Director) whereby the Additional Director has allowed petition under Section 42 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 Additional Director has remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for making necessary changes in the revenue record so that land could be distributed among the right-holders as per cut imposed on them. 3. In brief, the facts are that respondents No. 3 to 30 alleging themselves to be right-holders of village, filed petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director contending therein that during the consolidation of holdings, cut was imposed on their holdings for utilising the land for common purpose of the village and after utilising the area for common purpose, area to the extent of 435 Bighas 6 Biswas was left in the common pool. The plea of right-holders was that the Consolidation Authority could take away only that area which was to be utilised for common purpose and area left in excess was liable to be distributed. They also contended that vide mutation No. 2520, area belonging to Mushtarqa Malkan Hasab Rasad Khewat was wrongly mutated in the name of Panchayat whereas it should have been mutated in the name of right-holders. They submitted that mutation No. 2520 is illegal, non est and does not confer any right of proprietorship on Gram Panchayat and is liable to be set aside. 4. Gram Panchayat contested the petition and pleaded that the land was not deducted from the holdings of the right-holders and is being used by the Gram Panchayat for common purpose of the village. It submitted that the Panchayat is the absolute owner of the land as it is Shamilat Deh. 4. Gram Panchayat contested the petition and pleaded that the land was not deducted from the holdings of the right-holders and is being used by the Gram Panchayat for common purpose of the village. It submitted that the Panchayat is the absolute owner of the land as it is Shamilat Deh. Vide order dated 9.8.1984 (Annexure P-3), the Additional Director accepted the petition and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for making necessary changes in the revenue record so that land could be distributed among the right- holders as per cut imposed on them. Hence, this civil writ petition challenging order dated 9.8.1984 (Annexure P-3). 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that order dated 9.8.1984 (Annexure P-3) is not sustainable in law. 6. From the reading of order dated 9.8.1994, I find that the question before the Additional Director was whether the land in dispute was Shamilat Deh and as such was owned by the Gram Panchayat or by the right-holders of the village. The Additional 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 comprising of Khewat No. 563 Khatauni Nos. 858, 864, 865, 866 to 872, 873, 874, 875, 877, 878, 879, 880 was not required for common purpose and liable to be distributed among the right-holders. The finding of the Additional Director that the land was not Shamilat Deh, cannot be sustained because he had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the land in dispute was Shamilat 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. 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 Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. It is also not disputed that after the consolidation, the entry in the revenue record was in similar terms. 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 Shamilat 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, Patiala to decide the case afresh in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. No orders as to costs." 7. Also in Gram Panchayat village Narpur v. State of Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 268 Supreme Court (sic), the view taken by the Supreme Court was that the Additional Director has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in regard to land being Shamilat Deh. 8. Following the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the view that Civil Writ Petition No. 4928 of 1984 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is so ordered. Consequently, order dated 9.8.1984 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. Respondents No. 3 to 30 may, if so advised, seek their remedy before the Collector in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Petition allowed. C