Rajive Bhalla, J. (ORAL);— The Gram Panchayat, Karad, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat, prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 08.11.2006 and 19.09.2007 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat and orders dated 28.01.2009 and 22.03.2011 passed by the Collector, Panipat and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Camp at Panipat, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of order passed in CWP No.11646 of 2001, directing the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, to decide the question of title, he was required to adopt the procedure, prescribed in the first proviso to Section 7 of the 1961 Act, for deciding a question of title. The Assistant Collector, however, declined to decide the question of title and directed the Gram Panchayat to file a suit under Section 13A of the 1961 Act. It is further argued that apart from this error, as no question of title was ever decided, there is no question of any order operating as res judicata. Counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5, 7 to 9 submits that as no question of title was raised before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, and even otherwise as the Gram Panchayat was required to file a petition under Section 13A of the 1961 Act, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, rightly directed the Gram Panchayat to file a petition under the aforementioned provision. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, instead of filing it before the Collector, Panipat. The petition was rightly dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner in appeal and revision filed by the Gram Panchayat, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal and void. The writ petition may, therefore, be dismissed. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and have no hesitation in allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned orders. The case in hand reveals the casual manner in which, authorities, empowered to decide questions of title, compel parties to repeatedly approach appellate and revisional courts, oblivious of the law and the rights of parties. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act') before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act') before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, ordered the eviction of private respondents. The private respondents, filed C.W.P. No.11646 of 2001, which was allowed, vide order dated 14.08.2003, by holding, that as question of title has been wrongly decided, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, is directed to decide the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, afresh, and in accordance with law, within four months. A relevant extract from the said order reads as follows:- “From the discussion made above, it is clear that the land in dispute is the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and the respondents are in unauthorised possession, which is for a very short period. Therefore, in this case, question of title is proved in favour of the Gram Panchayat and the respondents are liable to be ejected.”(Underlining is ours). In our opinion, respondent No.3 committed a serious illegality by declaring respondent No.4 to be the owner of the dispute property solely on the basis of the observations contained in order dated 20.4.1993 passed by respondent No.2 ignoring the fact that the same had been nullified by virtue of order dated 31.5.1995 passed by the High Court in CWP No.9996 of 1993. While dismissing the appeal and revision of the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 1 passed detailed orders, but they failed to take cognizance of the illegality committed by respondent No.3 in recording finding on the question of title in favour of respondent No.4 solely on the basis of order dated 20.4.1993 passed by respondent No.2 which, as mentioned above, had been set aside by the High Court. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned orders are vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Orders Annexures P-7 to P-10 are declared illegal and quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the application of respondent No.4 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The petitioners and representative of Gram Panchayat, Karad, are directed to appear before respondent No.3 on 6.10.2003. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Orders Annexures P-7 to P-10 are declared illegal and quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the application of respondent No.4 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The petitioners and representative of Gram Panchayat, Karad, are directed to appear before respondent No.3 on 6.10.2003. The officer concerned shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within next four months.” A perusal of the above extract reveals that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, was required to decide the question of title, arising between parties and was, therefore, required to adopt the procedure prescribed by the proviso to Section 7 of the 1961 Act, which empowers an Assistant Collector Ist Grade, where a prima facie question of title arises, to decide the question of title, before proceeding to decide the petition for eviction. As it was already held in CWP No.11646 of 2001 that a question of title arises for adjudication, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, was duty bound to obey the order but instead rejected the Gram Panchayat's plea of ownership and dismissed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat, summarily, vide order dated 21.09.2004, without following the procedure prescribed by the proviso to Section 7 of the 1961 Act. Nafe Singh and Ram Singh filed an appeal. The Collector, Panipat, vide order dated 04.01.2005, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, and directed the Assistant Collector to decide the matter, afresh. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, took up the matter for consideration and vide order dated 08.11.2006 passed a strange order. The operative part of this order reads as follows:- “After going through the file, I reached to the conclusion that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Collector this suit can not proceed u/s 7 of the Village Common Land Act. Therefore, this suit is closed for indefinite period and the Gram Panchayat is directed to file the suit u/s 13 of the Village Common Land Act.” A perusal of the order reveals that the petition was adjourned, surprisingly, for an indefinite period and the Gram Panchayat was directed to file a suit, under Section 13A of the 1961 Act. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade once again ignored order passed by this Court. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade once again ignored order passed by this Court. The Gram Panchayat filed a suit for declaration of title, under Section 13A of the 1961 Act. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, held, vide order dated 19.09.2007, that as he has no jurisdiction to decide a question of title, under Section 13A of the 1961 Act, the suit was dismissed. The Gram Panchayat, instead of approaching the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, for revival of the original petition filed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act or approaching the Collector under Section 13A of the 1961 Act, filed an appeal before the Collector, Panipat. The Collector, Panipat, dismissed the appeal on 28.01.2009 without perusing the order passed by this Court, or order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, on 08.11.2006 and surprisingly, held that order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, operates as res judicata. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed. The Commissioner fared no better and dismissed the revision filed by the Gram Panchayat without perusing the order passed by this Court. A perusal of orders passed by authorities under the 1961 Act reveal that despite a specific direction in order dated 14.08.2003, passed in CWP No.11646 of 2001, the question of title has not been decided, much less, considered, by any authority. The impugned orders are, therefore, illegal and have to be set aside so as to ensure that question of title is decided. Before parting with the order, it would be appropriate to record that the proviso to Section 7 of the 1961 Act, does not prohibit an Assistant Collector Ist Grade, seized of a petition under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, from deciding a question of title, in the manner prescribed. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, orders dated 08.11.2006 and 19.09.2007 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat and orders dated 28.01.2009 and 22.03.2011 passed by the Collector, Panipat and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, respectively, are set aside and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, is directed to decide the question of title, afresh, and in accordance with law, within three months from the date of parties putting in appearance before him on 09.04.2013.