Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ of certiorari quashing order dated June 7, 1995 (Annexure P-13), passed by respondent No. 3, and orders dated June 7, 1995 (Annexure P-13), passed by respondent No. 3, and orders dated June 30, 1980 (Annexures P-8 and P-9), passed by respondents No. 2. 2. Dispute in this writ petition pertains to 23 Kanals 2 Marias of land, which, as on today, is shown as ownership of the Gram Panchayat. It is apparent from the record that in the year 1965, proceedings were initiated under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , (for short the Act) for ejectment of the petitioner from land bearing Khasra No. 3/20(l-16), 21/1(6-1), 47/15(2-18), 16 min(2-0), 17(8-0), 18(1-7), 23/2(1-0), measuring 23 kanals 2 Marias. That application was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated September 3, 1996, (Annexure P-5) wherein it was held that on this land, possession of the petitioner was for the last more than 12 years, without payment of any rent and accordingly notice for his ejectment from the land was withdrawn. Records further reveal that subsequent thereto, petitioner of his own filed an application under Section 11 of the Act with a view to get question of title regarding 23 kanals 2 marlas of land decided. It was his contention that prior to January 26, 1950, land in dispute was shown Shamlat Deh Hasab Hesas Munderza Shajra Nasab and was in cultivating possession of the land owner. It was his further ease that the land had wrongly been mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat and in view of provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act, land never vested in the Gram Panchayat. During pendency of that application, Gram Panchayat also moved an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from the land, which was subject matter of his application filed under Section 11 of the Act. Both these applications were consolidated and it was ordered that evidence led in application under Section 7 of the Act be also read in application under Section 11 of the Act. Both these applications were consolidated and it was ordered that evidence led in application under Section 7 of the Act be also read in application under Section 11 of the Act. Vide order dated June 30, 1980, (Annexure P-8), application of the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act was dismissed and vide order of the same date (Annexure P-9), application under Section 7 of the Act was allowed and petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. He went in appeal. That too was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated June 7, 1985 (Annexure P-13). Hence this writ petition. 3. By referring to documents (Anriexures P-1 to P-3) i.e., Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris, commencing from the year 1950, counsel for the petitioner contends that nature of the land, as shown in these documents, was such that in view of the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act, it will not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Counsel states that while passing impugned orders, authorities had not taken note of earlier orders passed in favour of the petitioner and also no finding had been given as to under which provisions of the Act, land would be termed as Shamlat Deh and vest in the Gram Panchayat. Counsel has further contended that effect of the judgment of the Civil Court passed on February 19, 1974 (Annexure P-14) had also not been looked into by the Collector and the Commissioner while dealing with the present controversy. He prayed that the impugned orders be set aside as the same were contrary to the provisions of the Act and application under Section 11 of the Act be allowed and the petitioner be declared owner of the land in dispute. 4. Contentions of counsel for the petitioner have vehemently been opposed by counsel for respondent No. 1, who argued that the Gram Panchayat, as per revenue record, was owner of the land in dispute. Since petitioner had failed to prove his possession prior to January 26, 1950, he was rightly ordered to be ejected from the property in dispute. Counsel further argued that the petitioner had failed to connect the land shown in documents Annexures P-1 to P-3 with the land in dispute. He prayed that the writ petition be dismissed being devoid of any substance. 5. Counsel further argued that the petitioner had failed to connect the land shown in documents Annexures P-1 to P-3 with the land in dispute. He prayed that the writ petition be dismissed being devoid of any substance. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is apparent from the records that the Collector while passing orders Annexures P-8 and P-9, after referring to many documents, had failed to give any finding as to under what provisions of law, Gram Panchayat had become owner of the land in dispute. Collector had not referred to any provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act to say so, It had only been said by the Collector that since the petitioner has failed to prove his possession before January 26, 1950, he could not be declared as owner of the property in dispute. Fact, referred to above, may be relevant for deciding an application for ejectment of the petitioner but when question of title was being decided, it was incumbent upon the Collector to frame issues, allow the parties, to lead evidence and then give a finding as to under what provisions of law Gram Panchayat would be deemed to have become owner of the land in dispute. As per Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari (Annexures P-1 to P-3), commencing from the year 1950, land was shown as Sham/at Deh Hasab Hesas Mudarza Shajra Nasab. Some part of ft was shown as Banjar Kadim and rest of the land was shown in self-cultivation of the co-sharers. Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the Collector to take note of entries, refeired to above, and then give a finding as to under what circumstances, Gram Panchayat had become owner of the land in dispute. It is apparent from the records that the Commissioner, while dismissing appeal of me petitioner, had also failed to look into this aspect of the matter. Effect of the order (Annexure P-5) had not been looked into by the authorities below. It is apparent from the records that the Gram Panchayat had led no evidence in application, which was moved by the petitioner for deciding question of title. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that- the opinion expressed by the Courts below regarding ownership was not justified. It is apparent from the records that the Gram Panchayat had led no evidence in application, which was moved by the petitioner for deciding question of title. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that- the opinion expressed by the Courts below regarding ownership was not justified. Merely because mutation was entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat vide order dated April 24, 1964 (Annexure P-4), it cannot be presumed to have become owner of the property in dispute. It is apparent from the records that the mutation was entered only keeping in view provisions of the Act without getting question of title decided from the competent authority. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner had also moved an application to adduce evidence. Even no finding has been given to dismiss the same vide the impugned order. 6. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, referred to above, this writ petition is allowed and impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Patiala, to decide it afresh after giving opportunities to the parties to lead evidence. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector on September 5, 2005. It is further directed that the Collector shall make an endeavor to decide this matter within nine months from the date when parties appear before him. No order as to costs.