JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.:- This order shall dispose of the above captioned writ petitions asthe point in issue involved in both the cases is common in nature. The factsare being extracted from CWP-13293-2015. 2. Gram, Panchayat of village Shahpur Dogra/Kollianwal, BlockKapurthala, District Kapurthala, has laid challenge to the order dated21.01.2015/06.04.2015 (Annexure P4) passed by the Director Land Records,Jalandhar, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 42 of the EastPunjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948(for brevity, ‘the 1948 Act’). The said order has been passed in complianceto the directions issued by this Court on 15.07.2013 in CWP-18502-1995(Mukhtiar Singh vs Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings,Punjab and others) whereby the previous order dated 28.07.1995 was setaside being non-speaking and the Director Land Records was directed topass a detailed and reasoned order with further liberty to remand the matterto the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, if so required. 3. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant part of theimpugned order which reads as follows:- “The record and various decisions of the Hon’bleCourts as well orders of Consolidation authorities wereexamined. The arguments of the Ld.counsels for the partieswere heard in detail. After so doing I find that the submissionmade by the petitioners deserves to be accepted. Earlier orderdated 21.10.1986 and 15.03.1991 passed under Section 42 ofCH Act, were upheld by the Hon’ble High Court andSupreme Court. In compliance of order dated 15.03.1991passed under Section 42 of the CH Act, the re-partition ofShamlat land was also not set aside by the any Court.Partition of Shamlat land was affected on 09.02.1993 after thematter was decided by various Courts. The right holdersother than the petitioners had given land out of Shamlat landas per their shares and they are enjoying the fruits of the landsince then. Even the petitioners also have portion of the landcarved out of Shamlat land. The question here is settling theproportion or specific parcel to be given to the petitioners. Infact this case does not call for the partition of Shamlat landamong the parties but adjustment of their shares or location oftheir parcels.”[emphasis applied] 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gonethrough the record. It may be seen that the Director Land Records is largelyinfluenced by the previous order dated 21.10.1986 and 15.03.1991 whichwere passed by his predecessor ordering re-partition of the shamlat deh. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gonethrough the record. It may be seen that the Director Land Records is largelyinfluenced by the previous order dated 21.10.1986 and 15.03.1991 whichwere passed by his predecessor ordering re-partition of the shamlat deh. Hehas reiterated those very orders on the premise that the challenge by theGram Panchayat to the above-stated orders was repelled by a learned SingleJudge of this Court on 05.11.1990 and the said order was further upheld bythe LPA Bench as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.04.1994. 5. While taking the view, the Director Land Records hasoverlooked the Full Bench dictum in Parkash Singh and others vs JointDeveloplment Commissioner, Punjab and others, [2014(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1695 (FB)] :2014(2) RCR (Civil)721, where this Court has illustratively explained as to what kind of orders,upheld by the judicial Forums, can be termed as binding in nature or can beignored, for in the absence of any provision for appeal, the doctrine ofmerger cannot be applied, more so when the High Court or the SupremeCourt did not pass reasoned orders while dismissing the Gram Panchayatchallenge. The essence of the matter is, thus, that the Director Land Recordsis obligated to determine whether the subject land could be partitionedamongst the proprietors and if so, whether the previous orders partitioningthe subject land were valid and passed in accordance with law? If it is foundthat the land could not be ordered to be partitioned, the next issue whichwould arise for determination is whether those erroneous orders can bereopened at this stage or will have to be given a decent burial in view of thefact that the same were upheld by this Court as well as the Apex Court. TheDirector Land Records ought to have answered these questions followingthe Full Bench judgment in Parkash Singh’s case (supra) or the subsequentcase law which has a direct bearing on the subject. The impugned speakingorder unfortunately does not even refer to the relevant case law exceptreiterating the previous orders dated 15.03.1991 and 21.10.1986. TheDirector Land Records ought to have answered these questions followingthe Full Bench judgment in Parkash Singh’s case (supra) or the subsequentcase law which has a direct bearing on the subject. The impugned speakingorder unfortunately does not even refer to the relevant case law exceptreiterating the previous orders dated 15.03.1991 and 21.10.1986. Stillfurther, the question whether the subject land is Shamlat deh and it vests in Gram Panchayat is a jurisdictional issue for which the Director Land Records will have to determine whether such like title dispute can beadjudicated in purported exercise of power vested in him under Section 42of the 1948 Act or such a question can be decided only by the Court ofCollector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961? 6. The impugned order is nothing but narration of facts withsweeping conclusions drawn by the Director as reproduced in para 3 of thisorder. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that theimpugned order does not satisfy the requirement of law as a speaking orreasoned order. The same is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remittedto the Director Land Records, Jalandhar to decide it afresh and in accordancewith law, keeping in view the relevant case law, to be cited by both theparties. It is, however, clarified that we have not expressed any opinion onthe merits of the case. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the Director LandRecord, Jalandhar, on 20.11.2017 who will decide the case within a periodof six months.