JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J. [Oral] - The petitioners who are proprietors of village Dodhan Majra, Tehsil & District Patiala, impugn the orders dated 24.02.1987 and 17.11.1989 of the Collector, Patiala and Additional Director, Panchayats, exercising the powers of Commissioner, Punjab respectively, passed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands [Regulation] Act, 1961. 2. Vide the first order, the Collector allowed the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat – respondent No. 1 and vide the subsequent order, the petitioners’ appeal against that order has been dismissed. 3. The order dated 24.02.1987 [P-2] passed by the Collector reveals that after noticing that the petitioners were required to prove their possession over the subject land on the cut-off date of 26.01.1950 or prior thereto, the Collector has rushed to refer to the solitary Jamabandi for the year 1976-77 in which Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner of the subject land. That very entry has been relied upon by the Appellate Authority to dismiss the the petitioners’ appeal. 4. It would not be out of context to mention that Section 11 empowers the Collector to decide title dispute between a Gram Panchayat and the proprietors. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred. In such a situation, where the power exercisable by the Collector under Section 11 is in substitution of that of the Civil Court, there lies an onerous duty on the Collector not only to formulate the relevant issues and permit the parties to lead evidence and/or summon the revenue record but also to return a firm finding of fact with reference to such issues. Unfortunately, no such exercise has been undertaken in this case. 5. None of the parties produced the revenue record immediately before and after 26.01.1950 till 1976-77. The petitioners have placed on record Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 which too can not be relied upon to decide the controversy in their favour as it is based upon an order dated 30.09.1978 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation in the so-called exercise of his powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Consolidation of Holdings [Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation] Act, 1948. The said order is liable to be ignored and over-looked firstly for the reason that the Gram Panchayat was not a party to it; secondly the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpur Vs. The said order is liable to be ignored and over-looked firstly for the reason that the Gram Panchayat was not a party to it; secondly the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., [1998] 8 SCC, 672, has held that no such jurisdiction vests in the Consolidation authorities to decide title disputes under the 1948 Act. 6. Resultantly, the Collector is obligatory to decide the petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act on appreciation of the entries in the revenue record before and after 26.1.1950. 7. For the reasons above stated and without expressing any views on merits, we allow the writ petition; set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the Collector, Patiala with a direction to decide the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat afresh. The Collector shall afford not more than two opportunities to the Gram Panchayat or the respondents, respectively, to lead their additional evidence, if any. The petition shall be decided at the earliest but in no circumstances beyond a period of six months. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Patiala on 22.12.2014. 9. Disposed of. Dasti. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————