JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.:- The petitioner is Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committee of Shri Gurudwara Sahib located in village Saidpur Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. It has laid challenge to the order dated 10.05.2016 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, in exercise of powers as Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the 1961 Act’). Vide the said order, the appeal filed by the petitioner-Committee against the order of the Collector, Tarn Taran, dated 26.03.2015 whereby its suit for declaration filed under Section 11 of the Act was dismissed, has been upheld. In its petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, the petitioner-Committee sought a declaration that the land measuring 37K-8M is under the ownership of Shri Gurudwara Sahib and the Gram Panchayat of village Bhathe Bhaini, respondent No.4, has no concern whatsoever with the said land. 2. A brief reference to the facts may be noticed: 3. Village Saidpur and Village Bhathe Bhaini are adjoining villages and it appears that at one point of time they had a common Gram Panchayat. It further appears from the revenue record, especially jamabandi for the year 1937-38 (Annexures P-1 and P-2 Colly) that some residents of both the villages parted with a part of their lands and gave it for the purpose of construction of Gurudwara and for generating income for its maintenance etc. The said land was depicted as shamlat deh in the revenue record and subsequently when Mutation No.704 was sanctioned on 06.12.1958, the land was shown to be owned by Gram Panchayat Bhate Bhaini, though it was in cultivating possession of Shri Gurudwara Sahib. Such entries continued in the jamabandi for the year 1958-59 as well as subsequently like in the jamabandi for the year 2005-06 etc. 4. It further appears that the Gram Panchayat of village Bhathe Bhaini started asserting its right over the land in dispute which was claimed to have been utilised by the petitioner-Committee for the purpose of running the affairs of Gurudwara. 5. The Gram Panchayat with a view to take possession of the land has filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, which, we are informed, are still pending. 6. 5. The Gram Panchayat with a view to take possession of the land has filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, which, we are informed, are still pending. 6. Meanwhile the petitioner-Committee filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act seeking declaration of ownership of Shri Gurudwara Sahib qua the land in dispute. It may be mentioned here that the dispute as to whether the land is shamlat deh and vests in Gram Panchayat or it is owned by the proprietors of the village is adjudicatable by the Court of Collector under Section 11 of the 1961 Act as the jurisdiction of Civil Court is expressly barred. 7. The essential issue which fell for consideration before the Collector therefore was whether the suit land is shamlat deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat under the 1961 Act or it is excluded from the definition of shamlat deh? 8. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the expression ‘shamlat deh’ is defined in Section 2(g) of 1961 Act and all those lands which fall in Clauses (1) to (5) are included within the ambit of shamlat deh. However, the lands falling in Clauses (i) to (ix) are not included in the definition of shamlat deh and Clause (ix) reads as follows:- “{was being used as a place of worship or for purposes, subservient thereto, immediately before the commencement of this Act}.” 9. In the light of the above reproduced provision, the next question which was required to be answered by the Collector was whether the land in dispute was used as a place of worship or for the purpose, subservient thereto, immediately before commencement of the 1961 Act, which came into force on 22.04.1961? 10. Both the authorities, namely, the Collector as well as the Commissioner have dismissed the declaratory petition filed by the petitioner but unfortunately neither the core issue referred to above, nor other ancillary issues, arising therefrom were framed or properly answered by both the Forums. It may be mentioned that the Collector framed Issue No.3 as to whether or not the receipts produced by the petitioner-Committee prove its title qua the land in dispute? It may be mentioned that the Collector framed Issue No.3 as to whether or not the receipts produced by the petitioner-Committee prove its title qua the land in dispute? Such an issue, in our considered view, is totally incomplete, vague and inconclusive for deciding as to whether or not the land in dispute was being used for a purpose subservient to the place of worship. Suffice to observe that if the evidence on record conclusively proves that the affairs of Shri Gurudwara Sahib are being run substantially on the basis of the income generated from the land in dispute, in that case, the petitioner-Committee can legitimately contend that the land in question comes within the ambit of Sub Clause (ix) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act and it, thus, does not fall within shamlat deh. On the other hand, if it is proved that the land is being cultivated by the office bearers/members of the Committee for their private use or it has been leased out not for generating income for Shri Gurudwara Sahib, the respondent-Gram Panchayat will be well within its right to assert that the said land indeed is shamlat deh and vests in it. The above-stated issues having not been expressly answered, we are left with no option but to set aside the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 (Annexure P/11) as also the order of the Collector, dated 26.03.2015 which has not been placed on record and direct the Collector, Tarn Taran to formulate a specific issue as to whether or not the subject land was being utilised for the purpose subservient to place of worship, namely, Shri Gurudwara Sahib as on the date when the 1961 Act came into force and, if so, whether it falls within the definition of shamlat deh? 11. The Collector, Tarn Taran, is directed to redetermine the questions within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties. He shall accord one opportunity to both the parties to lead any additional evidence, if need be. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Tarn Taran, on 08.08.2017.