Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. Nagar Panchayat, Begowal has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order, dated 11.2.2003 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, in terms whereof the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 227 min (3K 9M)and 315/1 (1K 0M) has been held to be "evacuee property". It may be stated here that though vires of Section 2(g)(5)(ii-a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, added vide Punjab Act No. 8 of 1995, was also challenged by the petitioner, however, during the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner has given up this challenge. 2. Shorn of the details, and in order to appreciate the controversy, it may be stated that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 227 min, measuring. 3 kanal, and 315/1, measuring 1 kanal, situated in village Begowal, District Kapurthala was shown in the revenue record as gair muinkin chhappar (pond) and gair mumkin rudi (dumping place), namely, reserved for public purposes. According to the Gram Panchayat of the village, the aforesaid land being "shamilat deh", stood vested in the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, however, allotted the said land to one Laxmi Narain on 27.12.1984 by treating it as "evacuee property", left by the Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan on partition of the country. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Gram Panchayat in a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab who vide his order, dated 8.8.1995 (Annexure P-3) accepted its petition and held that the land in question was shamilat deh and not an evacuee property. 3. The order, dated August 8, 1995 (Annexure P-3), was challenged by the allottee (Laxmi Narain) and one of his vendees, namely, Surinder Pal Singh, before this Court in C.W.P. No. 17129 of 1996. The Gram Panchayat, Begowal, which, by that time, had been substituted by the Notified Area Committee, was also impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the array of respondents. The Gram Panchayat, Begowal, which, by that time, had been substituted by the Notified Area Committee, was also impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the array of respondents. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order, dated January 16, 1997, though declined to interfere in the order dated August 8, 1995 (Annexure P-3), however, disposed of the writ petition with the following observations: As a matter of abundant caution, we make it clear that till the matter is decided regarding the nature of the property i.e. whether it is evacuee property or not?, the petitioners herein (who were respondents before the Financial Commissioner) would retain the possession of the land allotted to them, they would not change the nature of the land by raising any construction thereon. It will be appreciated if the matter regarding the nature of the property is decided expeditiously. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 4. Thereafter, Surinder Pal Singh one of the vendees of the original allottee filed another petition before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue ) in which he, for the reasons best known to them, did not implead Gram Panchayat of village Begowal or the Notified Area Committee as parties. The learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) vide his impugned order, dated 11.2.2003 has held the land in question to be an evacuee property on the premise that the entire village of Begowal was of Muslim population and, thus, allotment of the land in question in favour of Laxmi Narain in lieu of the land abandoned by him in West Pakistan, was valid. Accordingly, the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) accepted the petition and remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala with a direction "to treat the land as evacuee and implement the order, dated August 8, 1995, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue)...". Aggrieved at the aforesaid order, the Gram Panchayat Begowal has approached this Court. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record with their assistance. 6. Various contentions have been raised by learned Counsel for the parties on merits of the case. However, in view of the nature of order which we intend to pass, the same need not be dealt with. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record with their assistance. 6. Various contentions have been raised by learned Counsel for the parties on merits of the case. However, in view of the nature of order which we intend to pass, the same need not be dealt with. It is an admitted fact that vide remand order, dated August 8, 1995 (Annexure P-3), the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), on a petition preferred by the Gram Panchayat of village Begowal, categorically held that the land in question was "shamilat deh", vested with the Gram Panchayat. Vide subsequent impugned order, dated February 11, 2003 (Annexure P-5), passed in a petition preferred by one of the vendees of the original allottee and in which Gram Panchayat and/or its successor were admittedly not arrayed as parties, the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has reversed those findings and has concluded that the land in question is an "evacuee property" which could be allotted by the Rehabilitation Department to respondent No. 5. The Gram Panchayat has, thus, been divested of proprietory rights over the land in question without affording an opportunity of being heard and behind its back. Undoubtedly, in terms of the previous order, dated August 8, 1995 (Annexure P-3), the Gram Panchayat had legitimately acquired proprietory rights and interest in the land in question and it could not have been divested therefrom without an opportunity of hearing and/or behind its back. In our view, it was imperative upon the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) to hear the Gram Panchayat, Begowal before returning any finding adverse to its title, interest or rights qua the land in question. 7. For the reasons aforementioned and without going into merits of the rival contentions made by learned Counsel for the parties and leaving it open to them to raise the same before the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and/or any other appropriate forum, we set aside the impugned order, dated February 11, 2003 (Annexure P-5), for the solitary reason that it lacks non-observance of principles of natural justice and remit the case back to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) to decide the same afresh after hearing the parties concerned, including the Gram Panchayat, Begowal and/or its successor. 8. the parties are directed to appear before the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on April 03, 2006. 8. the parties are directed to appear before the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on April 03, 2006. Learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue) shall decide the case expeditiously and preferably within four months. 9. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.