JUDGMENT SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. - Factual background 1. Petitioners herein, namely, Baldev Singh, Teja Singh, Manjit Singh, and, Gurjit Singh instituted a petition against the Gram Panchayat concerned. The above petition became constituted under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, (for short 'the Act'). The claim made therein was qua the petitioners being declared owners in possession of the land, comprised in khewat No. 63, khatauni No. 17//23 (8-0), 24(8-0), 25(8-0), 30//3(6-16), 4(7-18), 5/2(1-12), 7(0-7) total measuring 40 kanals, 13 marlas, situated at village Diyagarh, Tehsil and Distrtict Patiala. The above claim became rested upon the factum, that prior to 26.1.1950, and, upto the relevant stage, the petitioners with an animus possidendi, and, hence holding open hostile possession of the petition land. They also further asserted that the above open hostile possession of the petition land, was within the knowledge of the entire village. Consequently, they claimed that they have become owner of the petition land through adverse possession. The secondary contention, which was raised by the petitioners, in the petition was that, the said land was never reserved for any common purpose, and, that it was not amenable for being vested in the Gram Panchayat concerned. 2. The above contentions in the petition were resisted, and contested by the respondents. The respondents claimed, that in the jamabandis commencing from the year 1958, and ending upto the year 2008-09, the petition land has been described as shamlat deh. Therefore, it became vested in the panchayat deh. Order of the Deputy Director, Village Development and Panchayat Patiala as comprised in Annexure P-2 3. The competent authority concerned, after assessing the revenue records relating to the petition land, as, commencing from the year 1958 and lasting upto the year 2008-2009, made a decision on 29.5.2012 hence declining relief to the petitioners. The reason which became assigned by the competent authority to dismiss the petition (supra), became grooved, in the factum, that though the petitioners had raised a contention that, their ancestors had made a purchase from persons, who were recorded in the revenue records, rather to be holding cultivating possession of the petition land, but since the above plea remained unproven, through placing on record any sale deed, as purportedly became executed nor his placing on record any consequent therewith order of mutation. Resultantly, the revenue officer concerned, came to a conclusion that the above plea remained unproven, hence leading him to dismiss the petition (supra). 4. Moreover, a further conclusion also became recorded in Annexure P-2, that since the petitioners remained completely unsuccessful in further proving, through adduction of cogent evidence qua his with an animus possidendi, rather holding cultivating possession of the petition land prior to the year 1950. Thus, an inference became drawn, that the plea of acquisition of title or perfection of title through adverse possession, as reared by the petitioners, also remaining unsuccessfully pleaded. Moreover, the competent authority concerned, through a common order dated 29.5.2012, dismissed all the petitions, instituted before him, under Section 11 of the Act. Decision of the Appellate Authority on Appeal No. 253 of 2012 5. The aggrieved petitioners preferred an Appeal No. 253 of 2012, against the order, as comprised in Annexure P-2, before the Appellate Authority concerned. The Appellate Authority concerned, though referred to the petitioner's pleading, unfolding that prior to the year 1950, they have been in cultivating possession of the petition land, and, also referred to their further pleading, that they have acquired title to the suit land through adverse possession. However, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, did not record any findings in respect of the validity of the above latter plea. Moreover, the Appellate Authority concerned, proceeded to through a common order, made on the above appeal, hence proceeded to dismiss the apposite appeal, besides also dismissed the connected appeals of all the aggrieved, whereagainst CWP No. 11167 of 2015, CWP No. 13006 of 2016, and, CWP No. 13068-2016, hence became instituted before this Court. Reasons for accepting the petition and setting aside and rejecting the concurrently made orders against the petitioners by both the authorities below 6. Though, the petitioners may have not been able to aptly establish their claim qua their holding a valid title to the petition land, on the basis of theirs purchasing it from the land owners. In addition, even if a contradictory plea became raised by the petitioners, appertaining to their acquiring title to the petition land through adverse possession. Moreover when, as above stated, the above plea became rested on the factum, qua the petitioners claiming adverse possession qua the writ land or theirs even asserting adverse possession thereons of their predecessor(s)-in-interest, hence commencing prior to the year 1950. Moreover when, as above stated, the above plea became rested on the factum, qua the petitioners claiming adverse possession qua the writ land or theirs even asserting adverse possession thereons of their predecessor(s)-in-interest, hence commencing prior to the year 1950. Thus, it was yet contended, that the application thereons of the apposite statutory vesting provisions, did become ousted or did save the petition land from vestment in the panchayat deh. The above contention was raised, irrespective of the petition land being described as shamilat deh, and, was also raised irrespective of the fact, that the petitioners had unsuccessfully pleaded, that theirs ancestors purchased it from some of the persons, who were reflected to be in cultivating possession of the writ land. 7. Be that as it may, the apposite ablest proof in respect of acquisition of title by the petitioners, or by their predecessor(s)-in-interest, through the averred adverse possession, as, commencing prior to the year 1950, thus saving the petition land from vestment in the panchayat deh, rather would have emanated, only when issues in respect of the above plea, became struck by the Collector concerned, and, whereafter cogent evidence in respect thereof became adduced, rather to bely the presumption of truth enjoyed by the revenue entries, as occurring in the relevant jamabandis. However, a close scrutiny of the records discloses, that despite the above acerbic contest emerging inter se the contesting litigants, yet the learned Collector concerned, not deeming it fit to frame any issue in respect thereof, nor obviously any evidence became adduced by the petitioners, to substantiate the above claim, that they had become owner in possession of the petition land through adverse possession, given theirs or their predecessor(s)-in-interest, both rather adversely cultivating the petition land prior to the year 1950. The Appellate Authority concerned may have also, on the above ground taken to remand the lis to the Collector, for a afresh decision being made thereons, but with a direction that only after the apposite issue being struck, as appertaining to the validity of the plea relating to the acquisition of title through adverse possession by the petitioners qua the petition land, and, thereafter evidence being permitted to be adduced thereons, by the litigants concerned. However, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, proceeded to dismiss the petition, and also obviously affirmed, and, maintained the order of dismissal, as made by the learned Collector concerned, on the petitioners' claim, as, raised in the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act. Effect of non framing of issues and its consequences 8. The result of non-framing of any issue, in respect of the contested fact, relating to acquisition of title by adverse possession by the petitioners on the petition land, as became rested on the apposite hostile possession thereons, commencing from the year 1950, is that, the petitioners became completely precluded from leading cogent oral or documentary evidence, to rebut the presumption of truth, as carried by the revenue entries appertaining to the petition land. 9. Be that as it may, even though in the jamabandis, appertaining to the petition land, as commencing from the year 1968-69, and, ending upto the year 2008-09, rather in the column of ownership thereof, the petition land has been described as shamlat deh hasab rasad zar khewat, and, also the persons in cultivating possession thereof, are also reflected thereins, besides such persons also may be the predecessor(s)-in-interest of the petitioners. Moreover, though in the jamabandi, drawn in the year 195859, as appertaining to the petition land, rather in the column of the ownership thereof, the Nagar Panchayat has been shown, but in the column of cultivating possession, the names of the cultivators find their reflection. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the predecessor(s)-in-interest of the petitioners have been reflected to make cultivation of the writ land, yet hence described as Gair Marusi Majara Awal Patait. Moreover, in the column of rent, the entry Basra Malkan Bawja Kabza exists. In the column of rent, appertaining to the jamabandi for the year 1962-63, the entry is of Majara Awal Bashara Malkan Bawja Bai, and, is Gair Marusi Mujara Kosh Malkan, as well as of Chakota Bill Mukta Maal Tamam Rs. 60/-. However, in the jamabandi, drawn in the year 1968-69, in respect of the writ land, and continuously thereafter, in the column of ownership, the entry Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zer Khewat exists. The said entries, do prima facie connote, that the persons, shown in the column of cultivation thereof, are cultivating the writ land as gair marusi'. 60/-. However, in the jamabandi, drawn in the year 1968-69, in respect of the writ land, and continuously thereafter, in the column of ownership, the entry Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zer Khewat exists. The said entries, do prima facie connote, that the persons, shown in the column of cultivation thereof, are cultivating the writ land as gair marusi'. Normally, the above entries in the revenue records relating to the petition land, may rather not confer good title, upon the petitioners, who do prima facie appear to be the successors-in-interest of those persons, who are named in the column of cultivating possession of the writ land. However, the above aspect has remained completely undealt with, nor has been adjudicated, whereas, an adjudication thereon was most imperative to enable the petitioners to irrespective of the above plea(s), to may be hence claim a valid title to the petition land. In addition the validity of makings of each of such entries, was also to be tested but has not been done. Resultantly, the entire lis has been dealt with in the most slipshod, and, arbitrary manner. 10. Nonetheless but yet even the claim for adverse possession, which has been raised by the petitioners, when relates to said adverse possession commencing prior to the year 1950, did require, that the relevant issue(s) be framed in respect thereof, and, also evidence being permitted to be adduced thereons by the contesting litigants, besides subsequently a fresh decision being made on the apposite lis, by the Collector concerned. The above order of remand by the Appellate Authority would have assuredly ensured the termination of the apposite lis, in the most judicious, and, legally apt manner. However, the above has not been done, which has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. 11. For undoing the miscarriage of justice, as caused, it is deemed fit to quash, and, set aside the concurrently made orders by both the revenue authority concerned, and, by the Appellate Authority concerned. Final order 12. What is the most startling aspect of this petition, is that, both the Collector concerned, as well as the Appellate Authority concerned, respectively, proceeded to make a joint decision on the apposite petitions, and, also on the apposite appeals, whereas, all the petitions, besides the appeals concerned, carried a completely different cause(s) of action, and, also completely uncommon revenue records. What is the most startling aspect of this petition, is that, both the Collector concerned, as well as the Appellate Authority concerned, respectively, proceeded to make a joint decision on the apposite petitions, and, also on the apposite appeals, whereas, all the petitions, besides the appeals concerned, carried a completely different cause(s) of action, and, also completely uncommon revenue records. Therefore, even the above joint decision, as made respectively on the petitions, by the Collector concerned, and, latter also made on the apposite appeals, by the Appellate Authority concerned, do also suffer from a gross non-application of mind qua the records relevant to the apposite controversy in all cases, which are but uncommon, and, dissimilar to each. For the above reason also, this Court deems it fit to quash, and, set aside the concurrent orders, as respectively made by the Collector concerned, and, the latter affirmed by the Appellate Authority concerned. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.5.2012 (Annexure P-2), and, dated 5.9.2014 (Annexure P-4), are quashed, and, set aside. The Collector concerned, is directed to after, at the instance of the litigants concerned, an apposite motion is cast, hence ensure the making of additions of all just, and, necessary parties, and, thereafter after receiving their replies to the petition, to strike all the relevant issues, and, thereafter shall permit all the litigants concerned, to adduce their respective evidence(s) thereons. Subsequently, the Collector concerned, shall make a fresh decision, in accordance with law, upon the relevant lis, through separate orders being made on each case. 13. The above exercise be completed within a year hereafter.