JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.: (Oral) - This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.23758 and 23759 of 2015 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.23758 of 2015. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 18.12.2012 (P-7), 31.07.2013 (P-12) and 19.05.2015 (P-14) which have been passed in the proceedings initiated under Sections 4, 5 & 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land Eviction and Recovery Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1972 Act’). 3. Vide the first order, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the suit land at the instance of the Gram Panchayat of his village and vide subsequent orders, his appeal and revision petition have been dismissed. 4. There is a concurrent finding of fact by the authorities that the subject-land though jumla mustarka malkan but is used for ‘common purposes’, hence its ‘management’ and ‘control’ vests in Gram Panchayat in view of the mandate contained in Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1948 Act’) as applicable to the State of Haryana. 5. The precise case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that that suit land which is jumla mustarka malkan was contributed by the proprietors of the village on pro-rata basis and he is in possession only to the extent of his own share. It is thus claimed that the Gram Panchayat has no concern with the suit land. 6. It may be observed here that earlier also eviction proceedings were initiated by the Gram Panchayat against the petitioner and some other persons under Section 7 of the 1961 Act. Those proceedings culminated into an order dated 15.07.2009 (P-5) passed by this Court in CWP No.17768 of 2006 (Amar Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others), in which the petitioner was permitted to raise the question of title under Section 7(1) of the 1961 Act before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade who was required to adjudicate the said issue. 7. The petitioner or his associates admittedly did not raise the title issue, hence the said question could not be decided in the instant proceedings. 8. 7. The petitioner or his associates admittedly did not raise the title issue, hence the said question could not be decided in the instant proceedings. 8. However, after passing of the impugned order, the petitioner is said to have filed a declaratory petition under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act whereunder the Collector is competent to adjudicate the title dispute between the Gram Panchayat and a proprietor/resident of the village. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. In our considered view, the eviction orders cannot be tinkered with and no interference by this Court is called for unless the petitioner establishes his title qua the suit land in appropriate proceedings. Since the declaratory petition has already been filed under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act and the impugned eviction proceedings are summary in nature, the petitioner may, if so advised, establish his title independently in the pending proceedings. He would be well within his right to plead that the findings given in the summary eviction proceedings are not per se binding on the Court of Collector while deciding the title dispute under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act. 11. With liberty aforementioned, the writ petition(s) stand(s) disposed of. 12. Dasti.