Judgment Harbans Lal, J. 1. This petition has been filed by Narain Singh, Dharam Singh through his legal representatives, Pritam Singh, Risal Singh, Mohinder Singh and Sulakhan Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned orders, annexures P-2 and P-4. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition are that on 3.4.1967, the petitioners filed a civil suit No. 77 of 1967 in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ajnala for possession of land measuring 689 Kanal 4 Maria delineated in the heading of the plaint on the ground that they were owners of the said land and that mutation No. 495 sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 3 (referring to the Gram Panchayat of village Kuralian Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar) was illegal and ineffective against their rights. The said suit, after contest by respondent No. 3 and two other defendants, was decreed on 29.4.1968 against respondent No. 3 for possession of the suit land excepting the land measuring 196 Kanal 11 Maria. The suit qua Ajaib Singh and Karnail Singh, defendants was dismissed vide Annexure P-1. In execution of the said decree, the petitioners took the possession of the disputed land on 20.1.1980. An entry in relation to the delivery of possession was duly made in Nakal Roznamcha Vakiati for 1979-80. The aforesaid judgment and decree became final as the respondent No. 3 did not prefer any appeal there against. On 7.8.1980, this respondent moved an application before respondent No. 3 (referring to the District Development Officer, Amritsar) under Section 4 read with Section 2(g)(4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act)- The same, despite serious opposition and contest to its maintainability, was allowed illegally and without jurisdiction ignoring Annexure P-1, vide order dated 17.11.1981, Annexure P-2, where against appeal, Annexure P-3 was filed. The same was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.1983, Annexure P-4. The impugned orders, Annexures P-2 and P-4 are liable to be quashed on the grounds adumbrated in this petition. The respondent No. 2, in the written statement has inter alia pleaded that the petitioners will be dispossessed from the land in dispute strictly in accordance with law and that this petition may be dismissed with costs. 3. The impugned orders, Annexures P-2 and P-4 are liable to be quashed on the grounds adumbrated in this petition. The respondent No. 2, in the written statement has inter alia pleaded that the petitioners will be dispossessed from the land in dispute strictly in accordance with law and that this petition may be dismissed with costs. 3. The respondent No. 3-Gram Panchayat, has inter alia pleaded in its written statement, that vide mutation No. 495, dated 18.5.1957, land measuring 988 Kanal was mutated in its favour and ownership vested in it. Later on, the consolidation took place in the village in the year 1961-62. The land in dispute was allotted to the Panchayat for common purposes of the village by the Consolidation Authorities. The area is Shamlat Tarf Hinduan (19 Kanals 14 Marias); Shamlat Patti Uggarsain (349 Kanals 19 Marlas), Shamlat Patti Khan (1 Kanal). This fact is clear from the Scheme sanctioned and the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Amritsar, Annexure R/3/1, the true translation of which is Annexure R/3/1A, which clearly shows that 988 Kanals 8 Marias of shamlat deh land was transferred in the name of Gram Panchayat" vide the above mentioned mutation. From then onwards, the Gram Panchayat became owner of the land and is recorded in the revenue papers. The petitioners in collusion with the Sarpanch of Panchayat, obtained a decree but did not execute the same for a* period of nearly 12 years. The possession throughout was the Panchayat and the same was obtained by the petitioners on 14.9.1980 after filing of the above said application on the basis of the judgment, annexure P-1 in which the Panchayat did not defend the case. The judgment, Annexure P-1 was obtained without bringing to the notice of the Civil Court the Scheme of Consolidation, Annexure R/3/1. Most of the land is being used for the common purposes of the village and most of the land is Gair Mumkin Nullah, Gair Mumkin Khud, Rasta Havelian, Khewat Kotha etc. and the possession of the agricultural land is also with the Panchayat. As per Section 4 of the Act, the Civil Court judgment has to be ignored as the land in dispute fulfills all the conditions prescribed in the Act for shamlat deh. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree Annexure P-1, which was kept concealed. and the possession of the agricultural land is also with the Panchayat. As per Section 4 of the Act, the Civil Court judgment has to be ignored as the land in dispute fulfills all the conditions prescribed in the Act for shamlat deh. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree Annexure P-1, which was kept concealed. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, besides perusing the records with due care and circumstances. 4. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, eloquently urged that the respondents No. 1 and 2 had no jurisdiction to nullify the civil courts judgment, Annexure P-1. The application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 4 read with Section 2(gX4) of the Act was not maintainable in law as the respondents No. 1 and 2 did not have the power or jurisdiction to dispose it of by invoking the provisions of the said Sections and furthermore, the petitioners had been duly put in actual possession of the land in dispute which is in their cultivating possession till now. He further puts that as Section 13 of the Act, on which reliance has been placed by respondents No. 1 and 2, while passing the impugned orders, was inserted in the Act by Punjab Act No. 19 of 1976 on 27.4.1976, that being so, these respondents had no power or jurisdiction to ignore and nullify the effect of the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1968 by applying the provisions of Section 13 retrospectively. To buttress these stances, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations made in Re: Barjinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1983 Revenue Law Reporter 208, Bara Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, Surjan Singh v. The Gram Panchayat village Mandhapur and Ors., The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Bhag Singh and Ors. 1998(1) Revenue Law Reporter 191, The State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhartu and Ors. 1993(1) Revenue Law Reporter 400 (S.C.), Gram Panchayat village Bathoi Kalan v. Jogar Ram and Ors. 5. Mr. v. State of Punjab, Surjan Singh v. The Gram Panchayat village Mandhapur and Ors., The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Bhag Singh and Ors. 1998(1) Revenue Law Reporter 191, The State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhartu and Ors. 1993(1) Revenue Law Reporter 400 (S.C.), Gram Panchayat village Bathoi Kalan v. Jogar Ram and Ors. 5. Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, representing the respondent No. 3 countered these arguments by maintaining that a glance through Annexure P-1, the main-stay or defence plank of the petitioners, would reveal that the same is of collusive nature as the then Sarpanch of Gram Sabha village Kuralian did not contest the suit at all and that being so, on the basis of this decree, the petitioners can neither be held to be the owners nor in lawful possession of the land in dispute. He further agitated at the bar that in view of the observations rendered by the Apex Court in re : Gram Panchayat of village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh and Ors., this being a collusive decree, could be challenged in the later proceedings which were initiated by the Gram Panchayat-respondent by moving an application under Section 4 read with Section 2(g)(4) of the Act before the District Development Officer, Amritsar. He further argued that as ruled by the Honble Supreme Court in re : United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and Ors. etc. (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 455, it is erroneous to state that the Tribunal or the High Court has no jurisdiction to set aside an Award on the ground of fraud disclosed later on. 6. Mr. Sarin, sparking his mental plug, made an endeavour to refute these arguments by urging that it is not the case of the respondents that the judgment/decree, Annexure P-1 was obtained by playing fraud with the court, so the observations rendered in re : United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) are of no assistance to the respondents. 7. On giving a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, the view I am disposed to take is that the contentions raised by Mr. Ltd. (supra) are of no assistance to the respondents. 7. On giving a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, the view I am disposed to take is that the contentions raised by Mr. Sarin are unsustainable and untenable for the discussion to follow hereunder: Section 2(g)(3) of the Act reads as under: 2(g) "Shamlat deh" includes: (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) lands described in the revenue records as shamilat, tarafs, patties, pannas and tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or part thereof or for common purposes of the village. Annexure R3/1A the Consolidation Scheme relating to village Kuralian Hadbast No. 283, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar reads in the following terms: 4(5) The shortage in the Joint area shall be made good from the KHEWATS of Panchayat Deh SHAMLAT PATTI UGGARSAIN, SHAMLAT PATTI KHAN, SHAMLAT TARF HINDUAN, in accordance with the condition No. 6 mentioned below. If the requirement is not fulfilled from the aforesaid JUMLA KHEWATS area, then the area shall be made good out of the area Jumla MALKAN as per the pro rata, of the ownership of the landowners. 6. TAKSIM RAKBA SHAMLAT DEH (Partition of the Shamlat-Deh area) In this village shamlat deh area was 986 Kanals 17 marlas as per 60 inch measurement. The land has been mutated in favour of Panchayat Deh vide mutation No. 495 which shall be utilized for the common purposes, and shall be entered in Khewat as Panchayat-Deh Besides this, the area of Shamlat Tarf Hinduan (19 K 14 M), Shamlat Patti Uggarsain (349 K 19 M) Shamlat Patti Khan (1 Kanal) as per 60 inch measurement is existing. Out of this, whole of patti Khan area will be utilized for common purposes, and out of the area of Taraf-Hinduan and Patti-Uggarsain, proportionately the area shall be utilized for the common purposes. In this manner, if any land still remains unutilized out of the Shamlat-Area, then after creating a separate KURRAH of the same, the same shall be ownership of shamalat (Panchayat) and the area to be utilized for common purpose shall be entered under the Khewat as Shamlat. Meaning thereby, that Jumla Khewat the area of Shamlat and Panchayat Deh as standard area shall be made good. Sd/- Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holding 25/1/61 Amritsar-II. 8. Meaning thereby, that Jumla Khewat the area of Shamlat and Panchayat Deh as standard area shall be made good. Sd/- Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holding 25/1/61 Amritsar-II. 8. From the language of Section 2(g)(3) ibid, it can be culled out that the land described in the revenue records as "Tarafs" also falls within the definition of "Shamlat deh". As is being evidenced by the above reproduced Annexure R3/1A, the area of Shamlat Tarafs Hinduan, Shamlat Patti Uggarsain and Shamlat Patti Khan, was reserved to be utilized for the common purposes. As per this document, the Consolidation Scheme came into existence on 25.1.1961. As per judgment Annexure P-1, the sheet anchor of the petitioners, Civil Suit No. 77 was instituted by them on 3.4.1967, which culminated in the decree on 29.4.1968. On combined reading of these documents, it emanates that the consolidation Scheme came into being about more than six years prior to the filing of this suit. As revealed by Annexure P-1, it was own case of the plaintiffs the present petitioner that the suit land was "Shamlat Taraf Hinduan Hasab Hissas Shirjran Nasab" as mentioned in the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1961-62. If it was so, this land being Shamlat Taraf, in no manner, could become the ownership of the plaintiffs, rather as per entries in the said Jamabandi, "Taraf Hinduan" was the owner of this land. There is not even a remote reference in Annexure P-1 that the plaintiffs had claimed themselves to be the share-holders in "Taraf Hinduan". Annexure P-1 is also silent about the documentary proof produced in this behalf by the plaintiffs. It emanates from Annexures P-1 that the suit was filed for possession of the land measuring 689 Kanals 4 marlas, which was decreed to the exclusion of land measuring 196 Kanals 11 marlas. In paragraph No. 2 of Annexure P-1, it has been recorded that the "Gram Panchayat has not filed any written statement to the present suit although the Sarpanch of the same was served in person". This fact gives an inkling that the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat being hand in glove with the petitioners-plaintiffs, did not come forward to contest the suit so as to let the same be decreed. It is noticeable here that decree, Annexure P-1 was got executed in 1980. This fact gives an inkling that the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat being hand in glove with the petitioners-plaintiffs, did not come forward to contest the suit so as to let the same be decreed. It is noticeable here that decree, Annexure P-1 was got executed in 1980. In other words, the petitioners slept over the execution of the same for about twelve years. In Annexure P-2 it has been clearly mentioned that "Fard Jamabandi for the year 1976-77, indicates that Khasra Number 132/1 is Haveli and also 156 Khasra No. 98 with an area of 195 Kanals 3 Marias is under Sakki drain. Again Khasra No. 100 and 102 are under Sakki drain with an area of 16 Kanals 17 Marlas and 23 Kanals 10 Marlas Khasra No. 102, 202, 206 and 207 etc., are under compost pits. This clearly shows that the land is used and reserved for common purposes". As follows from Annexure P-1, the petitioners had sought declaration for their ownership qua the land in dispute. The respondents in the application moved under Section 4 read with Section 2(g)(4) of the Act had taken the ground that the said decree was obtained by the respondents in collusion with the previous Panchayat which did not attend the Court of the Sub Judge nor filed written statement and, thus, the judgment and decree is without jurisdiction. In re: Gram Panchayat village Bathoi Kalan (supra), it has been observed by this Court that "the decree passed by the competent Civil Courts between the parties cannot be ignored by the authorities prior to amendment by Punjab Act 19 of 1976. Parties are always at liberty to get those decrees set aside on grounds of collusion, fraud etc. or otherwise by a competent court. Unless that said decrees are held to be collusive or obtained by fraud, the same cannot be ignored by the authorities". In re: The State of Haryana v. Bhartu and Ors. (supra), it has been held that "nullifying adjudications made by Civil Courts prior to Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1980 is invalid, inoperative and unconstitutional. The provisions can undoubtedly operate prospective for adjudication upon claim to shamlat deh but the same do not disturb finality of adjudication made earlier". Obviously, this matter did pertain to Haryana State. In re: The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Bhag Singh and Ors. The provisions can undoubtedly operate prospective for adjudication upon claim to shamlat deh but the same do not disturb finality of adjudication made earlier". Obviously, this matter did pertain to Haryana State. In re: The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Bhag Singh and Ors. (supra), it has been held that "inter se decrees between the parties obtained prior to 27.4.1976, on which date Punjab Village Common Lands Amending Act was published in the official Gazette and became effective, cannot be ignored by the authorities under the Act". In Re: Bara Singh and Anr. (supra), the mutation of land was sanctioned in favour of Gram Panchayat. Against the order of mutation, civil suit of owners was decreed. The matter became final between the parties and the mutation was sanctioned in favour of owners. Subsequently, Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act was amended by Punjab Act 19 of 1976. The Gram Panchayat filed an application for being declared owner and for ejectment. It was held that the decree passed prior to amendment by competent Civil Court between the parties cannot be ignored by the authorities under the Act. It would be an exercise in futility, if matter was allowed to be agitated before the District Panchayat and Development Officer, when decree passed before Punjab Act 19 of 1976 had come into force. In re: Barjinder Singh and Anr. (supra) it has been held that "retrospective abrogation of jurisdiction of Civil Courts validly exercised by them from 1961 by impugned Section 13 as inserted by Haryana Act No. 2 of 1981 clearly amount to trenching upon the judicial power by the legislature. The provision was held unconstitutional and it was struck down". 9. The tenor of all these rulings is that the decree passed by the competent Civil Courts between parties prior to the amendment by Punjab Act 19 of 1976 cannot be ignored by the authorities and the parties would be at liberty to get the same set aside on grounds of collusion, fraud etc. or otherwise by a competent court. In other words, such decrees could be set aside by the Civil Courts only and not by the other authorities, but in re : Gram Panchayat of village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh and Ors. or otherwise by a competent court. In other words, such decrees could be set aside by the Civil Courts only and not by the other authorities, but in re : Gram Panchayat of village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh and Ors. (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: In order to contend in a later suit or proceeding that an earlier judgment was obtained by collusion, it is not necessary to file an independent suit for a declaration as to its collusive nature or for setting it aside, as a condition precedent. Further, the property of a public institution cannot be allowed to be jeopardized by persons who, at an earlier point of time, might have represented it and who were expected to effectively defend public interest and community property. Persons representing public bodies are expected to discharge their functions faithfully and in keeping with the trust reposed in them. Thus, it was open to the statutory authorities under the 1961 Act to go into the collusive nature of the suit in the proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab, Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961. (Emphasis supplied). 10. In the impugned order dated 6.10.1983, Annexure P-4, it has been observed that "during consolidation operations, this land (referring to the land in dispute) was reserved for common purposes as is indicated in the Consolidation Scheme. The Civil Court decree passed on 29.4.1968 was no doubt a collusive one as the Gram Panchayat did not contest. The Civil Court decree was only for possession of land and has not decided the title and therefore, the title of the Gram Panchayat did not change, as a result of Civil Court decree. The Jamabandi for the year 1966-67 clearly shows that the land was used and reserved for common purposes. The appellants (referring to the present petitioners) took over the possession of the suit land on 20.1.1980 in execution of the collusive decree passed on 29.4.1968. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. Moreover, the provisions of Section 13(b) have overriding effect". 11. As noted supra, vide Annexure R 3/1A, the land measuring 986 Kanals 17 Marlas including the disputed one had been mutated in favour of Panchayat vide mutation No. 495 dated 18.5.1957 for being utilized for the common purposes. Moreover, the provisions of Section 13(b) have overriding effect". 11. As noted supra, vide Annexure R 3/1A, the land measuring 986 Kanals 17 Marlas including the disputed one had been mutated in favour of Panchayat vide mutation No. 495 dated 18.5.1957 for being utilized for the common purposes. When the mutation of this land had already been sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat on 18.5.1957 and it was reserved for being utilized for common purposes, the Civil Court did not have the power to entertain the suit as the jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Act was barred. The Consolidation Scheme as well as sanctioning of the above mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat could have been brought to the pointed notice of the Court only by the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who did not come forward to contest the suit for reasons best known to him. In view of the observations extracted from the case of Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh and Ors. (supra), the Commissioner, who passed the impugned order, Annexure P-4 and the District Development Officer-respondent, who handed down the impugned order, Annexure P-2 could go into the collusive nature of the suit in the proceedings before them under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 . The respondents were not required to file an independent suit in the Civil Court for setting aside Annexure P-1. The then Sarpanch of the respondent Gram Panchayat did not watch interest of the Gram Panchayat, rather allowed its property to be jeopardized though he was expected to defend interest of the Gram Panchayat by discharging his functions effectively as the trust was reposed in him. 12. Mr. Sarin adequately relied upon the observations made by the full Bench of this Court in re : Ram Panchayat village Bathoi Kalan v. Jogar Ram and Ors. (supra). In Gram Panchayat of village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh and Ors. (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has held that "we do not agree with the decision of the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jogar Rams case. The full bench has not referred to Section 44 of the Evidence Act or to any other precedents of other Courts or to any basic legal principle." Thus, to say the least of it, Mr. Sarin cannot derive any mileage from the authorities relied upon by him. The full bench has not referred to Section 44 of the Evidence Act or to any other precedents of other Courts or to any basic legal principle." Thus, to say the least of it, Mr. Sarin cannot derive any mileage from the authorities relied upon by him. 13. In Annexure P-1, it has been merely mentioned that "copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1961-62 is Exhibit P-1 and copy of Jamabandi for 1957-58 is Exhibit P-2. Both these show that the property was in possession of the owners and was not being used for the common purposes of the village. Exhibit P-3 is the copy of the alleged mutation No. 495. It has been mentioned therein that the mutation is entered by virtue of letter No. 57 SK in respect of whole of khata but before me the Panchayat has not shown as to how the land has become the ownership of the Panchayat. According to the provisions of Punjab Common Lands Vesting of Proprietary Rights Act, only such land vested in the Panchayat as were being used for common purposes of the village, but there is nothing to suggest that the present land was so being used". These observations are absolutely silent as to on what basis the plaintiffs-petitioners were presumed to be the owners of the disputed land. If the Gram Panchayat could not adduce the evidence, it does not mean that merely on the basis of Exhibits P-1 and P-2, the plaintiffs were entitled to get possession of the land. Annexure P-1 does not reveal the basis as to the right of the plaintiffs to have possession of the land. The Act was first published in Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary) Legislative Suppl. Part I, dated 4.5.1961. As per the provisions of Section 1 of the Act, it was to come into force at once. It imports that it came into force on 4.5.1961, whereas the suit was filed on 3.4.1967, though as per the Consolidation scheme, the land in dispute had already been reserved for common purposes on 25.1.1961. There is nothing in Annexure P-1 that the disputed land of "Taraf Hinduan" did vest in the plaintiffs as owners. Section 4(1) of the Act reads as under: 4. There is nothing in Annexure P-1 that the disputed land of "Taraf Hinduan" did vest in the plaintiffs as owners. Section 4(1) of the Act reads as under: 4. Vesting of right in Panchayat and non-proprietors: (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any agreement, instrument, custom or usage of any decrees or order of any Court or other authority, all rights, title and interests whatever in the land. (a) which is included in the shamilat deh of any village and which has not vested in a Panchayat under the shamilat law shall, at the commencement of this Act, vest in a Panchayat constituted for such village, and where no such Panchayat has been constituted for such village, vest in the Panchayat on such date as a Panchayat having jurisdiction over that village is constituted. (b) which is situated within or outside the abadi deh of a village and which is under the house owned by a non-proprietor shall on the commencement of shamilat law, be deemed to have been vested in such non-proprietor. By operation of the above provisions of law, the land in dispute came to vest in the Pancbayat on the commencement of the Act as well. Section 7 of the Act runs as under: 7. By operation of the above provisions of law, the land in dispute came to vest in the Pancbayat on the commencement of the Act as well. Section 7 of the Act runs as under: 7. Power to put Panchayat in possession of certain lands.: (1) An Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction in the village may, either suo moto or on an application made to him by a Panchayat or an inhabitant of the village or the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or Social Education and Panchayat Officer, or any other officer authorized by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, after making such summary enquiry as he may deem fit and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, eject any person who is in wrongful or unauthorized possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat under this Act and put the Panchayat in possession thereof and for so doing the Assistant Collector of the first grade may exercise the powers of a revenue Court in relation to the execution of a decree for possession of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887: Provided that if in any such proceedings the question of title is raised and proved prima facie on the basis of documents that the question of title is really involved, the Assistant Collector of the first grade shall record a finding to that effect and first decide the question of title in the manner laid down hereinafter. On the dint of the aforequoted provisions, the petitioners can be ejected from the land in dispute by the respondents. 14 In view of the preceding discussion, no case to issue the desired writ is made out. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. Of course, having regard to the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.