JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - The petitioner-Gram Panchayat prays that order dated 17.03.2004 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, (exercising the powers of ‘Commissioner’, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar), allowing the appeal filed by the private respondent may be set aside and the order dated 20.05.1998 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Collector, Gurdaspur, may be restored. 2. The Gram Panchayat filed an application, under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Land (Eviction and Land Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1973 Act’), for eviction of Harbhajan Singh, respondent no.3, from the land, in dispute, on the ground that respondent no.3 has illegally occupied the land. 3. After putting in appearance, respondent no.3 filed a reply, averring that the land, in dispute, is “Mushtarka Malkan” and was in possession of Bawa Singh son of Virsa Singh, Pritam wife of Karam Singh, Swaran Singh son of Karam Singh, Jagir Singh son of Milkha Singh and Bara Singh son of Budha Singh and Amrik Singh son of Waryam Singh, who executed a power of attorney on 27.08.1992, in his favour and thereafter sold the land, in dispute, to Kuldip Kaur etc. on 01.09.1992, for Rs.48,000/-. The land, therefore, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat filed a replication controverting averments in the reply and pleaded that Bawa Singh etc. had no right to sell the land and in an enquiry conducted by Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, the said sale deed has been held to be fraudulent and a fine of Rs.12,70,250/- was imposed upon the then Sarpanch. The Gram Panchayat also led evidence to prove that the land, in dispute, was leased out to Harbhajan Singh, respondent no.3, Harinder Singh and others in 1983, but they refused to vacate the land, after expiry of the lease period. 4. After considering the pleadings and the evidence, the Collector held that as the land, in dispute, was reserved for common purposes of the village during consolidation, it vests in the Gram Panchayat for management and control and as respondent no.3 is in illegal possession, ordered his eviction. Respondent no.3, filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner by holding that the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 5. Respondent no.3, filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner by holding that the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 5. Counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat submits that as the land, in dispute, was created and reserved for common purposes during consolidation, it vests in the Gram Panchayat for management and control. Bawa Singh etc. had no right to sell the land. The land, in dispute, was leased out by the Gram Panchayat to Harbhajan Singh, respondent no.3, Harinder Singh and others but they refused to vacate the land after expiry of the lease period. Harinder Singh has already been ordered to be evicted. Civil Writ Petition No.156 of 2001 (Harinder Singh v. The Commissioner, Jalandhar), filed by Harinder Singh against order of his eviction has been dismissed. Civil Appeal No.2557 of 2004 (Harinder Singh v. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and others), filed by Harinder Singh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was dismissed, on 03.03.2011. The finding recorded by the learned Commissioner that as the land is “Mushtarka Malkan” it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, is incorrect as land reserved as “Mushtarka Malkan” during consolidation, for common purposes of a village vests in a Gram Panchayat, for management and control. Respondent no.3 has not adduced any evidence to prove that his vendors were proprietors of the land, in dispute. 6. Counsel for respondent no.3, submits that the land, in dispute, was owned and possessed by proprietors of the village, who sold it to Smt. Kuldip Kaur wife of Bhajan Singh, ½ share and Kishan Singh, Satnam Singh sons of Sulakhan Singh and Dalbir Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh, ½ share, vide registered sale deed dated 01.09.1992 for Rs.48,000/-. A mutation was sanctioned in the name of the vendees. The land, in dispute, never came into possession of the Gram Panchayat. As the Gram Panchayat has not challenged sale deed dated 01.09.1992, it proves that vendees are owners in possession of the land, in question. The order passed by the Commissioner, is well reasoned and as it is based upon sale deeds, the writ petition may be dismissed. It is, however, not denied that a similar dispute relating to similar land of the same village and the same Gram Panchayat, has been decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat. 7. The order passed by the Commissioner, is well reasoned and as it is based upon sale deeds, the writ petition may be dismissed. It is, however, not denied that a similar dispute relating to similar land of the same village and the same Gram Panchayat, has been decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and have no hesitation in holding that the learned Commissioner, has committed an error of jurisdiction while holding that the land, in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 8. A perusal of the facts reveals that the land, in dispute, was reserved during consolidation for common purposes of the village. The learned Commissioner, while holding that the Gram Panchayat has no right, title or interest in the land, in dispute, lost sight of the fact that land recorded as ownership of “Mushtarka Malkan” denotes common land reserved, during consolidation, for common purposes of the village, in accordance with Sections 18 and 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, read with Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949. The alleged proprietors, who sold the land, had no right to sell the land to respondent no.3 or to any other person. A complaint was filed against purchase of this land, before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, and there is no denial of the fact that sale deed dated 01.09.1992 was held to be illegal and fraudulent by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur and an FIR was lodged. The Gram Panchayat had leased out the land, in dispute, to Harbhajan Singh, respondent no.3, Harinder Singh and others in 1983 but after expiry of the lease period, they did not vacate the land. The Gram Panchayat filed separate petitions for eviction against Harbhajan Singh, respondent no.3 and Harinder Singh etc. The eviction orders passed against Harinder Singh were upheld in Civil Writ Petition No.156 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No.2557 of 2004, filed by Harinder Singh, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has also been dismissed. The respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that their vendors were proprietors or had any proprietary interest in the land, in dispute. The eviction orders passed against Harinder Singh were upheld in Civil Writ Petition No.156 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No.2557 of 2004, filed by Harinder Singh, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has also been dismissed. The respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that their vendors were proprietors or had any proprietary interest in the land, in dispute. It appears that respondent no.3 obtained a power of attorney from certain persons and, thereafter, the land was sold to Kuldip Kaur and others, vide sale deed dated 01.09.1992. The land, in dispute, clearly vests in the Gram Panchayat for management and control, and as such the sale deed is null and void. The impugned order holding that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, while accepting the appeal and dismissing the petition for eviction is illegal and void. 9. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, order dated 17.03.2004 is set aside and order dated 20.05.1998, passed by the Collector, is restored.