JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral):- The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 4.12.1985 and 30.3.1989, passed by the Collector/Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala and the Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab. 2. The petitioner, since deceased, filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, as it was in the cultivation possession of his predecessors in the year 1939-40 and thereafter continues to be in his possession. The Gram Panchayat opposed the application by asserting its ownership. The Collector/Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala, dismissed the application by holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 2(g)(5)(viii) of the Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Director, Panchayat, (exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Act) by holding that land in possession before consolidation has not been linked to the land in dispute. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the Collector nor the Commissioner considered the “Misal Haqiat”, the “register karwai” and other relevant consolidation documents, which clearly establish that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of land in possession of his forefathers, before 1950. It is submitted that though these documents are referred to in the order passed by the Commissioner, but have not been considered. 4. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that as the Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner of the land in dispute, the “Misal Haqiat”, the “register karwai” or any other document prepared during consolidation, would not divest Gram Panchayat of its ownership. It is submitted that as the petitioner has failed to prove that the land in dispute was in his possession prior to 1950, the application and the appeal were rightly dismissed. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives is in possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner has produced revenue documents that prima facie appear to suggest that the petitioner’s predecessors were in possession over a parcel of land before 1950. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives is in possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner has produced revenue documents that prima facie appear to suggest that the petitioner’s predecessors were in possession over a parcel of land before 1950. The only dispute is, whether the land in dispute is the land, that was in possession of the petitioner’s predecessors, prior to 1950. The documents, namely the “Misal Haqiat” and the “register karwai” etc. that are germane to the issue in hand have not been perused, much less considered by the Commissioner. The petitioner’s plea that his predecessors were in possession before 1950 is based upon these documents. The Commissioner should have, therefore, considered these documents, before dismissing the appeal. 7. In this view of the matter, I have no option but to partly accept the writ petition, set aside the order dated 30.3.1989 and remit the matter to the Director, Panchayats, exercising the powers of the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh, after taking into consideration the evidence on record and if deemed appropriate, by granting an opportunity to adduce additional evidence. Ordered accordingly. 8. The Director, Panchayats shall decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 25.10.2010. —————