JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J.:- This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 03.03.2004 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing the writ petition of the writ petitioner/appellant. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that Sh. Jattu Singh, father of the petitioner, is said to be in possession of the land measuring 54 kanals 10 marlas situated in Village Rehurian Wali, Tehsil Muktsar, comprised in Khasra Nos. 18/2 (3-16), 22/4(0-10), 23/2(1-7) of Rect. No.35; Khasra Nos.2/1(5- 2), 6/2(0-9), 7/1(0-16) of Rect. No.55; Khasra Nos.19(1-13), 20/1(0-10) of Rect. No.61, Khasra No.7/4(1-16) of Rect. No.55; Khasra No.21/2(5-17); 22(3-17) of Rect. No.61; 8(6-13); 9(1-18), 14(6-7) of Rect. No.55, which was recorded as Zumla Mushtarka Malkan in the jamabandi for the year 1971-72. Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 for eviction from 54 kanals 10 marlas of land by claiming itself to be the owner of the property. However, learned Collector, Muktsar vide order dated 20.7.1979 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the application of the eviction. Thereafter, Gram Panchayat filed an appeal which was also dismissed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 24.10.1981 (Annexure P-3). After about one year and two months, respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 for eviction of Jang Singh son of Hari Singh from an area measuring 22 kanals 14 marlas falling in khewat No.238, khatauni No.562, khasra Nos.22/3(0-10), 23/3 (1-17) of Rect. No.35; 14(6-7), 141(4-0) of Rect. No.55 and khewat No.235 khatoni No.540, khasra No.142(9-0). Similar application was filed for eviction of Jitta Singh son of Sajjan Singh from an area measuring 27 kanals 15 marlas comprised in khasra Nos.55M//2/1(5-2), 6/2(0-9), 7/4(1-16), 8(6-13), 9(1-18) in khewat No.238, khatoni No.558 and 61M//19 (1-13) and 20/1(0-10), 21/2(5-17), 22(2-17). However, Jang Singh and Jitta Singh took stand that we are not in possession of the land and the same was in possession of the Jattu Singh son of Kala Singh. However, respondent No.2 passed orders of eviction dated 8.6.1983 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) of Jang Singh and Jitta Singh. 3. According to the petitioner, he had no knowledge about the orders of eviction (Annexures P-8 and P-9) dated 8.6.1983 till 12.12.1983 when Patwari of the Village informed him about the same. However, respondent No.2 passed orders of eviction dated 8.6.1983 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) of Jang Singh and Jitta Singh. 3. According to the petitioner, he had no knowledge about the orders of eviction (Annexures P-8 and P-9) dated 8.6.1983 till 12.12.1983 when Patwari of the Village informed him about the same. He thereafter obtained certified copies of both the orders and filed appeals which were dismissed by respondent No.3 vide orders dated 24.12.1984 (Annexures P-10 and P-11). 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed as under:- “I have given serious thought to the respective arguments and carefully perused the record. It is true that in their statements (Annexures P-6 and P-7) Jang Singh and Jitta Singh, against whom respondent No.1 had filed applications for eviction, stated that they were not in possession of the land in dispute and that the same was in possession of Jattu Singh and respondent No.2 passed the orders of eviction without issuing notice to Jattu Singh, but that by itself is not sufficient for invalidating the impugned orders because no evidence had been produced before respondent No.3 and none has been produced before this Court to show that the land which was subject-matter of Annexures P-4 and P-5 and orders Annexures P-8 and P-9 belonged to Jattu Singh or that he was in possession thereof. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person aggrieved by the orders of eviction passed by respondent No.2 and the dismissal of his appeals by respondent No.3 cannot be declared as vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record.” 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant vehemently argued that once proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for the same land was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 20.7.1979 (Annexure P-2) and an appeal therefrom was also dismissed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 24.10.1981 (Annexure P-3), then for the same land fresh application under Sections 4 and 5 was not maintainable and learned Single Judge has wrongly observed that in both the proceedings land was different. He took us to the earlier application moved by the Gram Panchayat under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (Annexure P-1) as well as second application moved by the Gram Panchayat (Annexure P-4) and argued that in both the applications land mentioned is the same and identical. We find some prima-facie force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents argued that both the land are different and finding recorded by the learned Single Judge needs no interference. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the view that if land in the earlier proceedings as well as in the subsequent proceedings is the same then second application is certainly was not maintainable. We think it proper to direct the trial Court (original authority) to find out as to whether the land in both the proceedings was same or identical. 9. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of with the direction that trial Court (original authority) shall pass fresh order after hearing both the parties and after recording the clear cut findings on the question as to whether the land in the previous proceedings and the land in the present proceedings is the same or identical. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 26.04.2010. --------------