JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.: (Oral) - This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.17075 & 17716 of 1998; 794, 3949 & 4607 of 1999. While CWP Nos.17075, 17716 of 1998 & 794 of 1999 are preferred by the Gram Panchayat of Village Katta, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, the other two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.3949 & 4607 of 1999 are at the instance of the right-holders of the village. The controversy pertains to land measuring 105 kanal 8 marla, the details whereof are given in para 2 of CWP No.17075 of 1998 which is also treated as the lead case. 2. While the Gram Panchayat claimed the subject-land to be shamlat deh and owned by it, respondents No.3 to 20 refuted the claim of the Gram Panchayat and filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 seeking declaration of their title over the land in dispute. 3. The then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat filed written statement in which though he disputed the uninterrupted possession of the private respondents for more than 12 years prior to the commencement of 1961 Act but admitted them to be the proprietors of village who were statedly in unauthorized occupation of the land. The Collector, Ropar even without framing issues or a detailed discussion on the evidence led by the parties, made a brief reference to some of the jamabandis and accepted the claim of private respondents that they were in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years before the 1961 Act came into force. A declaratory order in their favour was thus passed on 25.09.1987 (Annexure P9). 4. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat alleges that the ex- Sarpanches of the village (Daulat Ram and Tulsi Das) themselves were the beneficiaries of the above-mentioned order and not only one of them filed an evasive and vague written statement but they also kept the order under the carpet and no appeal was filed. Tulsi Das was placed under suspension on 27.12.1996 followed by his removal from the office of Sarpanch. Thereafter, the new Sarpanch filed appeal against the Collector’s order but that was dismissed by the Joint Development Commissioner, IRD exercising the powers of Commissioner, vide order dated 03.07.1998 (Annexure P10) except Appeal No.35 of 1998 which has been allowed in part. 5. Tulsi Das was placed under suspension on 27.12.1996 followed by his removal from the office of Sarpanch. Thereafter, the new Sarpanch filed appeal against the Collector’s order but that was dismissed by the Joint Development Commissioner, IRD exercising the powers of Commissioner, vide order dated 03.07.1998 (Annexure P10) except Appeal No.35 of 1998 which has been allowed in part. 5. The Gram Panchayat impugns the above-stated appellate order to the extent of dismissal of its Appeal Nos.34 & 36 of 1998 while the right-holders have challenged the same appellate order so far as it accepted the appeal of Gram Panchayat and/or their ownership claim was turned down. 6. It may be mentioned at this stage that as per the appellate order dated 03.07.1998, the Gram Panchayat has failed to prove that the land was ever used for common purposes or that the proprietors were not in its possession or it was leased out to them. 7. It is equally apt to take up now the writ petitions filed by some of the right-holders, as according to them, the ownership claim based on identical grounds has been accepted but their contentions have been mechanically repelled. 8. There appears to be substance in the contentions raised by both the parties that the Collector as well as the appellate authority have decided the case casually without application of mind. For example in CWP No.17075 of 1998 (lead case), the appellate authority has failed to explain the revenue record (Annexure P11) which clearly depicts the Gram Panchayat to be the owner of suit land and some individuals are recorded in its possession “in equal share as gair marusi”. We further find that the nature of Killa Nos. also vary from being banjar kadim to gair mumkin abadi etc. It was thus imperative upon the Collector to formulate the issues, discuss the evidence on record consisting of revenue entries and then determine the status of each Khasra Nos. as to whether or not such Killa Nos. constituted shamlat deh, and if not, its effect in law? 9. Both the parties have raised contentious issues to support their claim. It is not expedient for us to express any views at this stage much less it casts any prejudice to either of them. as to whether or not such Killa Nos. constituted shamlat deh, and if not, its effect in law? 9. Both the parties have raised contentious issues to support their claim. It is not expedient for us to express any views at this stage much less it casts any prejudice to either of them. Suffice it would be to say that the matter requires re-determination at the hands of the Collector and then the Appellate Authority under the 1961 Act. 10. For the reasons afore-sated, the writ petitions are allowed in part to the extent that the impugned orders dated 25.09.1987 (Annexure P9) passed by the Collector as well as the appellate order dated 03.07.1998 (Annexure P10) are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector at Ropar to decide the same afresh and in accordance with law. The Collector shall be required to formulate the issues, and if need be, to give not more than two opportunities each to the parties to lead their respective evidence. 11. The Collector shall decide the matter preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Ropar on 17.11.2014. 12. Ordered accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------