JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J. (Oral): - The petitioners, who claim themselves to be the proprietors in the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land, have filed the instant petition, challenging the order dated 14.6.1985 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, in exercise of the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Consolidation of Holdings Act’), whereby 87 Kanals 18 Marlas of land, except Killa No. 12//2/3 measuring 2 Kanals, was held to be vesting in Gram Panchayat, Village Budhanwal, which was transferred in its favour prior to 20.6.1964 and it was being managed and utilized by the Gram Panchayat. On the basis of an earlier order dated 12.3.1982 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, in favour of the petitioners, they claim that by the said order, the Additional Director accepted their petition for partition the said land and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, with a direction to determine share of each right-holder in the disputed land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 12.3.1982 (Annexure P-2), mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. He further argued that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpur v. State of Punjab and others, 1997 (1) PLJ 268 and Gram Panchayat village Sidh v. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab and others, 1997 (1) PLJ 313, the impugned order dated 14.6.1985 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, is not sustainable. In these judgments, it was held that under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, an Additional Director Consolidation has no jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership with regard to “Shmalat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat” and with regard to such land only Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) has the jurisdiction to decide the question of title. In view of the said judgments, learned counsel contends that the impugned order, whereby the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land, which according to the petitioners was a `Bachat land’, was held to be owned by the Gram Panchayat, is totally without jurisdiction. In view of the said judgments, learned counsel contends that the impugned order, whereby the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land, which according to the petitioners was a `Bachat land’, was held to be owned by the Gram Panchayat, is totally without jurisdiction. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside and the petitioners have the liberty to file a petition/title suit under Section 11 of the Act, claiming the ownership on the said land. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned order be set aside and liberty be granted to the petitioners to establish their title on the land in question before the competent authority under the Act. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 – Gram Panchayat, village Budhanwal, argued that the land in dispute falls under the definition of Shamilat Deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat, therefore, it was rightly transferred in favour of the Gram Panchayat, prior to 20.6.1964. He does not dispute the aforesaid legal position and has very fairly conceded that the impugned order be set aside and liberty to the aforesaid effect be granted to the petitioners. 4. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, I am of the opinion that the orders dated 12.3.1982 (Annexure P-2) and 14.6.1985 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, are not sustainable and the same are, hereby, quashed. However, it will be open for the petitioners to file a petition/title suit under Section 11 of the Act. In view of Rule 21-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, which provides that a title suit is to be filed within thirty days from the date of accrual of cause of action to the Collector, the petitioners are granted liberty to file such suit within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. Petition is disposed of accordingly. -----------0.K.B.0-----------