JUDGMENT Rekha Mittal, J. By way of this order, we shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition C.W.P. No. 12949 of 2001 Nos. 12949 and 12950 of 2001 as they involve adjudication of common questions of law and facts. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 12949 of 2001. Gram Panchayat Mangwal, Tehsil and District Sangrur prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 04.12.1996 (Annexure P2), passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, Panchayat Officer, Punjab, accepting the appeal of respondent No. 3, thereby setting aside the order of eviction passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (Collector), Sangrur, in favour of the petitioner Gram Panchayat. The petitioner Gram Panchayat filed an application, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises and Land (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act') for eviction of respondent No. 3 from the land, in dispute, by alleging that respondent No. 3 is in illegal possession of the Panchayat's land and has no right, title or interest to retain its possession. The application filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (Collector), Sangrur, vide order dated 29.01.1996 (Annexure P1). Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Collector, Jhanda Singh, respondent no. 3, preferred an appeal before the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) Punjab (exercising the powers of 'Commissioner'), which was allowed thereby setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Collector. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land, in dispute, is mushtarka malkan and the same vests in the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of management and control. Respondent No. 3 is in illegal possession of the land, in dispute, therefore, he was rightly ordered to be C.W.P. No. 12949 of 2001 evicted by the Collector in exercise of jurisdiction, under the 1973 Act. The Appellate Authority, without recording any finding that the respondent No. 3 has any right to remain in possession of the land, in dispute, proceeded to decide the appeal in his favour, without considering the provisions of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1948 Act') and the nature of mushtarka malkan land and the rights of the Gram Panchayat in the said land in regard to control and management. It is further argued that the Appellate Authority has misdirected itself by holding that as the land, in dispute, is not 'shamilat deh', as per provisions of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 and respondent No. 3 is a proprietor of the village, the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat is not entitled to seek eviction of the respondent. Counsel for the contesting respondent, however, submits that the Gram Panchayat filed an eviction application raising a specific plea that the land, in dispute, was leased out in favour of the respondent and he failed to redeliver its possession on expiry of the lease period. It is argued that the Gram Panchayat failed to adduce any evidence much less documentary to substantiate its plea with regard to creation of lease in favour of respondent No. 3. It is further argued that as the Gram Panchayat has failed to establish its plea with respect to creation of lease, the Gram Panchayat has no right to seek eviction of the respondent, who is in continuous possession of the land, in dispute, being a proprietor of the village. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as order passed by the Collector and the pleadings in the writ petition. The land, in dispute, is admittedly recorded as mushtarka malkan, i.e., land created after applying a pro rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors in accordance with Section 18 and 23A of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1948 Act') and rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949. A perusal of these statutory provisions reveals that the land, so created and reserved, vests in the Gram Panchayat for its control and management. The private respondents are, admittedly, in possession of land described as mushtarka malkan. The management and control of such land vests in Gram Panchayat, thereby, conferring a right upon the Gram Panchayat to seek eviction of an unauthorized occupant in possession of mushtarka malkan by resorting to proceedings under Section 4 and 5 of the 1973 Act. The private respondents are, admittedly, in possession of land described as mushtarka malkan. The management and control of such land vests in Gram Panchayat, thereby, conferring a right upon the Gram Panchayat to seek eviction of an unauthorized occupant in possession of mushtarka malkan by resorting to proceedings under Section 4 and 5 of the 1973 Act. The respondents contention that the Gram Panchayat has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the land, in dispute, was given on lease to them, is irrelevant for the present controversy. The contesting respondents have not been able to refer to any material much less a revenue document that would raise even a prima facie inference that they are entitled to remain in possession of the land, in dispute. This apart, after the land was reserved as mushtarka malkan, the right of management and control has come to vest in the Gram Panchayat, entitling the Gram Panchayat to seek eviction of an unauthorized occupant, even if he is one of the proprietors of the village. The Appellate Authority committed a patent error in recording a finding that as the land, in dispute, is not shamilat deh, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the Gram Panchayat is not entitled to seek eviction of private respondents. In view of what has been discussed herein above, the writ petition is allowed, order dated 04.12.1996, passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), is set aside and order dated 29.01.1996, passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (Collector), Sangrur, is restored. However, the contesting respondents may resort to appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for adjudication of title to the land, in dispute.