JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-5). It has been found that the petitioners have not produced any document to prove that they are in possession prior to 26.01.1950 whereas the Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner of the subject property. 2. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the land measuring 43 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in village Balbera, Tehsil and District Patiala. It is Gram Panchayat who is recorded as owner of the Shamilat Deh, whereas the land is said to be given to the respondent on lease. After the expiry of lease period, the respondents did not surrender the possession of land to the Gram Panchayat. The land in dispute has been used for common purposes of the village. It is also pleaded that the land was Shamilat Deh even prior to consolidation which has taken place in the year 1960-61. The respondent was not in possession as per the revenue record prior to the consolidation. 3. In reply, the stand of the petitioners was that the land in dispute had never been in possession of Gram Panchayat nor ever been used for common purposes nor the revenue record shows that the land is owned by Gram Panchayat. It is also argued that Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act, which was dismissed on 19.11.1996 and that Panchayat has no right to seek eviction of the petitioners. The learned Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala exercising the powers of Collector found that Panchayat is the owner as per the revenue record (Ex.P3). Shamilat Deh is recorded as owner in the column of ownership in the Jamabandi for the year 1998-99 whereas the petitioners are recorded in the column of cultivation. It was also found that the order dated 30.05.1997 gives liberty to the Panchayat to get the question of title decided. Therefore, the present application is maintainable and that the respondent has failed to prove his possession prior to January, 1950. 4. It was also found that the order dated 30.05.1997 gives liberty to the Panchayat to get the question of title decided. Therefore, the present application is maintainable and that the respondent has failed to prove his possession prior to January, 1950. 4. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that earlier Panchayat sough eviction of the petitioners by filing petition under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioners on 04.06.1996 which was dismissed on 30.05.1997 holding that the decision of Assistant Collector on 19.11.1996 under Section 7 of the Act operates as resjudicata. It is argued that once the petition of the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act has been dismissed, the Gram Panchayat could not seek adjudication of title under Section 11 of the Act. It is also argued that in terms of Rule 21-A, the present petition raising question of title is barred by limitation, as the petition under Section 11 of the Act has not been filed within 30 days. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as 1984 PLJ 42 titled as “Sarwan Singh and others Vs. Gram Panchayat Balad Kalan and others”. 5. Section 11 of the Act confers right on any Gram Panchayat to seek adjudication of the rights of Panchayat. It does not provide any limitation for initiating such proceedings for and on behalf of Panchayat. However, in Rule 21-A, it is stipulated that any person who claims a right in Panchayat must institute a case within 30 days of the day when cause of action arises. It is contended that the cause of action arose to Panchayat when petition under Section 7 of the Act was dismissed on 30.05.1997. Therefore, the proceedings filed in the year 2004 are barred by limitation. 6. The orders passed by the authorities under the Act in proceedings under Section 7 thereof are the summary proceedings, which proceeds on the assumption that the owner of the land is Panchayat. If in such proceedings, disputed question of title arises, the same is to be adjudicated upon in terms of Section 11 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this proposition of law. If in such proceedings, disputed question of title arises, the same is to be adjudicated upon in terms of Section 11 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this proposition of law. However, it is argued that once an order has been passed against the Panchayat, the cause of action has arisen to Panchayat to claim title against the so-called alleged unauthorized occupant, which Panchayat has to exercise within 30 days in terms of Rule 21-A of the Rules. The relevant Rule 21-A is reproduced as under: “21-A. Decisions of claim of right, title or interesting shamilat deh. (1) Any person claiming a right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in the panchayat may submit an application in the form of a statement duly signed and verified in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, supported by a copy of the revenue record within thirty days from the date of accrual of cause of action to the Collector. (2) The Collector shall, after receiving the application, send notice to the Panchayat concerned along with the copy of the application directing it to appear before him on the date fixed for the purpose. The Collector shall decide the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties to substantiate their respective claims.” 7. We do not find that the period of limitation of 30 days is applicable to an action to be initiated by Panchayat. The provision is in respect of an action to be initiated by third person claiming that the land vest in Panchayat. Thus, in the said case, the period of 30 days will start running from the day cause of action arises. The language of Rule is to the declaration of vesting of land in Panchayat. Such an action is by third person. Sub-Clause (2) of Rule 21-A makes things further clear when the notice of the application so filed has to be given to Panchayat. The Panchayat cannot issue notice to itself. Thus, the filing of an application to claim title of the land having vested in Panchayat is applicable to the persons other than the Panchayat. 8. Sub-Clause (2) of Rule 21-A makes things further clear when the notice of the application so filed has to be given to Panchayat. The Panchayat cannot issue notice to itself. Thus, the filing of an application to claim title of the land having vested in Panchayat is applicable to the persons other than the Panchayat. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in Sarwan Singh’s case (supra) has held that in Section 11 proceedings, the Collector is not to decide correctness of the order passed under Section 7 of the Act and therefore, every threatened injury to title would give a recurring cause of action. It has been further held that if the action is not taken within 30 days of dispossession, it would be time barred, but not otherwise. The Court observed as under: “8. A reading of the aforesaid rule shows that the limitation of 30 days has to be calculated from the date of accrual of cause of action. A combined reading of section 11 (1) with rule 21-A (1) would show that the title to the property has to be decided by the Collector and not about the correctness of any order passed under section 7 of the Act and, therefore, every threatened injury to title would give a recurring cause of action. Recurring cause of action will get ceased the moment a person claiming that the land has not vested in the Panchayat, is dispossessed therefrom. From the date of dispossession, if the claim is not filed under section 11 of the Act and is filed beyond that time limit, it would obviously be time barred, otherwise it would not be time barred.” 9. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the plea that claim of the Gram Panchayat is barred by limitation is clearly not sustainable. The cause of action to the person dispossessed would arise within 30 days of the dispossession, whereas, in respect of the declaration sought for the benefit of Panchayat, the period of 30 days is not applicable. 10. There is no evidence of the petitioner being in possession prior to 26.01.1950 nor any evidence that the land in their possession is not exceeding their share in shamilat. The petitioners do not satisfy any of the conditions so as to oust the proceedings initiated. 11. Thus, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. 10. There is no evidence of the petitioner being in possession prior to 26.01.1950 nor any evidence that the land in their possession is not exceeding their share in shamilat. The petitioners do not satisfy any of the conditions so as to oust the proceedings initiated. 11. Thus, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.