Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 6122, 6135 and 8935 of 1992, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts, which are almost identical, for the sake of convenience, are being extracted from C.W.P. No. 6122 of 1992. 2. Primary challenge in this writ petition is to the legality of the order, Annexure P-3, dated 16.12,1991, passed by the Director, Land Records, Punjab exercising powers, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short herein after referred to as "the Consolidation Act"). 3. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat impugns the order of the Director Land Records, Punjab, passed while exercising powers of the Director Consolidation, on the plea that authorities under the Consolidation Act have no jurisdiction to decide whether the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat or the right holders. The sole authority, vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute, is the Collector, exercising powers conferred upon him, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short herein after referred to as "1961 Act"). 4. Consolidation in village Shekhupur concluded in 1951-52, Land comprised in Khata No. 95, measuring 1037 bighas 1 biswa was recorded as Shamlat Deh Hasab Hissas Mudarza Shajra Nasab. During consolidation proceedings, this land was distributed amongst the share holders. Thereafter, a pro-rata cut was applied to the land holdings of the share holders, whereupon 523 bighas 13 biswas of land was reserved for common purposes of the village. Out of this, 261 bighas 17 biswas of land was reserved for charand. Upon conclusion of consolidation proceedings, the aforementioned land was reflected in the revenue record as the ownership of the gram panchayat. Pursuant to proceedings, Initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, a part of the aforementioned land was acquired by the State of Punjab. Award with respect to the acquisition was pronounced on 27.3.1991. 5. Upon conclusion of consolidation proceedings, the aforementioned land was reflected in the revenue record as the ownership of the gram panchayat. Pursuant to proceedings, Initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, a part of the aforementioned land was acquired by the State of Punjab. Award with respect to the acquisition was pronounced on 27.3.1991. 5. Respondents No. 4 to 15, being dis-satisfied with the fact that compensation was to be paid to the gram panchayat, filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act before the Director of Land Record, Punjab, exercising the powers, under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, praying therein that during consolidation an excessive pro-rata cut had been applied to their land holding and, therefore, this excessive land could not have vested in the Gram Panchayat. Vide order dated 7.4.1992 (Annexure P-3), the Director Land Records, while exercising powers under the Consolidation Act, held that during the consolidation proceedings, excess land had been deducted from the right holders for creation of the land in dispute and, therefore, the right holders were entitled to claim the excess land. As a consequence, the Director land Records remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, directing him to deduct 2 or 4 acres from the Gram Panchayats land, and for the balance land, determine the share holdings of the right holders. The Director Land Records also held that compensation for acquisition of the land was payable to the right holders. 6. Counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat contends that the Director Land Records, while exercising powers under the Consolidation Act, has determined a question of title regarding ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Jurisdiction to determine such a question vests in the exclusive domain of the Collector, conferred with powers to decide such disputes, under Section 11 of 1961 Act. By determining whether the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat or not, the Director Land Records has usurped the powers of the Collector, under Section 11 of 1961 Act and, therefore, the impugned order being without jurisdiction, is null and void. For the above proposition, counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Gram Panchayat Nurpur V/s. State of Punjab and Ors., 1998 8 SCC 672, . 2. Gram Panchayat Village Sidh V/s. Addl. Director Consolidation of Holdings, 1998 9 SCC 270. 3. Jit Singh and Ors. For the above proposition, counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Gram Panchayat Nurpur V/s. State of Punjab and Ors., 1998 8 SCC 672, . 2. Gram Panchayat Village Sidh V/s. Addl. Director Consolidation of Holdings, 1998 9 SCC 270. 3. Jit Singh and Ors. V/s. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and Ors., 2004 137 PLR 438. 7. The next point, urged in support of challenge to the order of the Director Land Records, is that the scheme of consolidation, which stood finalised in 1951-52, could not have been modified by the Director Land Records, exercising powers under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, after a long and unexplained delay of 40 years. This unexplained delay should have invited summary rejection. Reliance for the aforementioned proposition is placed upon the following judgments :- (1) Gram Panchayat Kakran V/s. Addl. Director of Consolidation and Anr., 1997 8 JT 430, . (2) Mange Ram V/s. Financial Commissioner and Ors., 2003 1 RCR(Civil) 551. 8. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, vehemently contends that the Director Land Records, exercising powers under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act merely held that during consolidation, an excessive cut had been imposed on the holdings of the right holders and, therefore, directed re-distribution of the excess land amongst the right holders. The impugned order does not adjudicate a question of title, as none was raised. The land continued to vest in the right holders and merely because a mutation of ownership was entered in the name of the Gram Panchayat would not raise an inference that the Director Land Records adjudicated a question of title. It is further contended that where land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, Consolidation Authorities are empowered to enter adjudication and pronounce in respect thereof. 9. For the above proposition, reliance is placed upon the following judgments;- (1) Bhagwan Singh V/s. The Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1997 2 RCR(C) 365. (2) Gram Panchayat, Ranjit Garh V/s. Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1998 118 PLR 475. (3) Gram Panchayat Village Kot-Mana, Teh. Jagron V/s. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, 1998 2 AllILLR 280. (4) Gram Panchayat of Village Nawan Killa V/s. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Ors., 2001 1 AllILLR 624. (5) Teja Singh V/s. Commissioner (JDC) R.D. & Panchayats Punjab, 2002 3 AllILLR 453. (3) Gram Panchayat Village Kot-Mana, Teh. Jagron V/s. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, 1998 2 AllILLR 280. (4) Gram Panchayat of Village Nawan Killa V/s. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Ors., 2001 1 AllILLR 624. (5) Teja Singh V/s. Commissioner (JDC) R.D. & Panchayats Punjab, 2002 3 AllILLR 453. (6) Gram Panchayat, Majahadur Tehsil and District Kapurthala V/s. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and Ors., 2005 139 PLR 464. (7) Amar Singh (died) and Ors. V/s. The State of Punjab and Ors., 2005 139 PLR 570. 10. On the next point, namely, the long delay in approaching the Consolidation Authorities, counsel for the private respondents contends that the Consolidation Act does not prescribe limitation to impugn a scheme prepared, confirmed, and/or a re-partition effected. The delay has been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, the Director Land Records, exercising powers under the Consolidation Act, committed no illegality in passing the impugned order. 11. Reliance for the above proposition is placed upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Sh. Jagtar Singh V/s. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Anr., 1984 0 PLJ 223 (F.B.). It is further contended that the Hon ble Supreme Court in The Gram Panchayat, Village Kanonda V/s. Director Consolidation of Holdings and Ors., 1990 0 PLJ 213 has approved the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, as also the judgments cited for and against the respective contentions. 13. Before proceeding further to adjudicate the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of 1961 Act. Section 11 of the 1961 Act reads as under: - "11. Decision of claims of rights, title or interest in shamlat deh.- (1) Any person or a Panchayat claiming right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act, or claiming that any land has not so vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such time as may be prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and signed and verified in the prescribed manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Any person or a Panchayat aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under Sub-section (1), may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such form and manner, as may be prescribed and the Commissioner may after hearing the appeal, confirm vary or reverse the order appealed from and may pass such order as he deems fit." 14. Section 11 of 1961 Act lays down, in no uncertain terms, that any person, who claims a right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in the Gram Panchayat may submit to the Collector within such time as may be prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim. Section 11 of 1961 Act uses two expressions "vested or deemed to have vested in a Panchayat..." and "... any Land has not so vested in a Panchayat..". Thus, any person who claims that land vests in or is deemed to have vested or has not so vested in a Gram Panchayat, must seek adjudication of such claim before the Collector, under Section 11 of 1961 Act. 15. The legislature in its wisdom, with the object of providing a single forum to determine questions regarding right, title or interest in Shamlat Deh, conferred jurisdiction in respect thereof upon the Collector. Legislative intent being clear and unambiguous, brooks no exception and, thus, must be read to exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts and Tribunals to determine questions of title qua land vested or deemed to have vested in a Gram Panchayat. To hold otherwise would result in judicial anarchy, with different Tribunals/Courts determining questions of right, title or interest and arriving at different conclusions qua the same land. The above conclusions are fortified by the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpurs case (supra) and Gram Panchayat village Sidhs case (supra). While dealing with a similar controversy, in Gram Panchayat Nurpurs case (supra) where the entry in the Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 was Shamlat Deh, Hasab Rasat Khewat, Maqbooza Malkan, the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "5. We are of the view that the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no authority to go into the question whether the land dispute was shamlat deh or not. We are of the view that the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no authority to go into the question whether the land dispute was shamlat deh or not. This is a question which could only be decided by the authorities under the Regulation Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Additional Director, Consolidation and also the order of the High Court and send the matter before the Collector, Kapurthala for decision in accordance with law under the Regulation Act." 16. In case of Gram Panchayat village Sidh (supra), where the entry in the revenue record prior to and post consolidation was Shamlat Deh Hasad Rasad Raqba Khewat, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to decide whether the land vested in the Gram Panchayat or the right holders on the plea that the land was bachat land. The Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Additional Director Consolidation, as also the order of this High Court and remanded the case to the Collector, exercising the powers under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. 17. In Jit Singh and others case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the writ petition on another point, observed as follows;- "9. We have heard learned counsel representing the parties and examined the records of the case. As on today, it may be correct and it is, indeed so that the authorities constituted under the Act of 1948 have no jurisdiction to determine the question of title and wherever there is a plea of a party that the land, subject matter of dispute, belongs to the proprietors and not the Gram Panchayat or vice versa, it is only the authorities constituted under the Act of 1961, which would have jurisdiction to determine the question. No doubt, judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Nurpur and Gram Panchayat Village Sidhs cases (supra) do support the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered view, this writ, petition deserves to be dismissed." 18. Though the judgments, cited by counsel for the private respondents, have no applicability to the present controversy, I would be remiss in my duty in not referring to them. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered view, this writ, petition deserves to be dismissed." 18. Though the judgments, cited by counsel for the private respondents, have no applicability to the present controversy, I would be remiss in my duty in not referring to them. In Bhagwan Singhs case (supra), no question of title was involved. The Director was not called upon to decide whether the land was covered by the definition of shamlat deh and consequently, this Court upheld the order of the Director Consolidation. In Gram Panchayat Ranjit Garhs case (supra), the land in dispute had never vested in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the order of the Director Consolidation was maintained. In Gram Panchayat Village Kot-Manas case (supra), the land in dispute was Jumia Mushtarka Malkan and there was no evidence that the said land had vested in the Gram Panchayat. In Gram Panchayat of village Nawan Killas case (supra), Teja Singhs case (supra), Gram Panchayat, Majahadpurs case (supra) and Amar Singh (died) and others case (supra), the land sought to be partitioned by the right holders, was bachat land i.e. the land which remained un-utilised, after reserving land for the common purposes. Such land obviously does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the impugned orders were held to be legal and valid. 19. Thus, a perusal of the provisions of Section 11 of 1961 Act, as also the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Court, leave no manner of doubt that where a question is raised claiming that land has or has vested or is deemed to have or not deemed to have vested in the Gram Panchayat, the sole authority to decide such a dispute would be the Collector, exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act of 1961. To hold otherwise, as observed above, would lead to judicial anarchy with the Director Consolidation deciding on his own understanding of the matter and the Collector adjudicating as per his perception of facts and law. 20. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that the land measuring 261 bighas 17 biswas, which is the subject matter of controversy in the present writ petition, was reserved for charand, a common purpose. 20. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that the land measuring 261 bighas 17 biswas, which is the subject matter of controversy in the present writ petition, was reserved for charand, a common purpose. It is not in dispute that upon conclusion of consolidation proceedings, the said land was classified as Shamlat Deh vesting in the Gram panchayat. 21. The private respondents, by filing an application before the Director land Records, raised a plea that the land in dispute did not vest in the Gram Panchayat, as the pro-rata cut, applied during consolidation, was in excess. The respondents, thus, sought a declaration that the land, which the Consolidation Authorities had recorded as having vested in the Gram Panchayat, had not so vested. The Director Land Records, in turn, was called upon to decide whether the pro-rata cut had been rightly imposed and if not, whether the Gram Panchayat should still be held to be the owner of the land in dispute. The question that merits determination is whether the Director Land Records had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate such a dispute. 22. Applying the aforementioned principles of law to the facts of the present case, in my considered opinion, the private respondents sought adjudication of a question of title, namely, whether the Gram Panchayat or the right holders were the owners of the land in dispute, though by impugning the legality of the pro-rata cut, imposed upon them during consolidation. Adjudication of a question as to the legality of a pro-rata cut, imposed during consolidation, would obviously result in an affirmation or negation of the Gram Panchayats title. The final result, as has happened in the present case, would be to determine whether the land vests in the Gram Panchayat or not. In the presents case, as is apparent from the impugned order the Director Land Records held that the pro-rata cut, applied to the land in dispute, was excessive, thus, in essence held that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. What the Director Land Records decided was, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, a pure question of title, which could only have been decided by the Collector under 1961 Act. Consequently, the order of the Director Land Records (Annexure P-3), being without jurisdiction, is void and therefore, liable to be quashed. 23. What the Director Land Records decided was, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, a pure question of title, which could only have been decided by the Collector under 1961 Act. Consequently, the order of the Director Land Records (Annexure P-3), being without jurisdiction, is void and therefore, liable to be quashed. 23. On the second point, though adjudication, in view of what has been held above, may not be necessary, suffice to say there is no limitation for impugning a scheme, framed under the Consolidation Act. However, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in The Gram Panchayat village Kanondas case (supra), the scheme must be impugned within a reasonable time. I do not propose to dilate any further on this point, as laches may be a factor to be considered by the authorities, as and when and if the respondents deem it proper to approach them under 1961 Act. 24. Before parting with the judgment, it would be appropriate to mention here that the land in dispute stands acquired by the State of Punjab for the benefit of the Union of India. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was restrained from utilising the compensation payable for the acquisition of the land, pursuant to an order of this Court dated 24.7.1992. With the disposal of the present writ petition, the aforementioned restraint would obviously come to an end and compensation shall be disbursed, in accordance with law. 25. In view of what has been stated above, the present writ petition is allowed and the order of the Director Lands Records (Annexure P-3) is set aside, being without jurisdiction. The parties would be at liberty to seek an adjudication of the question of title, if any, before the appropriate forum. No order as to costs.