Judgment Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner Gram Panchayat-Mehangarwal claims relief for quashing of Annexures P-10 and P-11. 2. Annexure P-10 is a verdict drawn by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar (hereinafter for short called as the ‘Additional Director’), upon, case No. 53 of 1990 inter-se the Gram Panchayat Mehangarwal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur and one Baldev Chand. 3. The above verdict was made on a petition filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Though in the operative part of the verdict, on the asking of the counsel for the petitioner, the lis (supra) was dismissed as withdrawn and with no permission being granted to re-file it. However, the said dismissal as withdrawn of the lis (supra), is only when prior thereto, there was a complete discussion about finality and conclusivity being assignable, to a decree of the Civil Court, as became made on 25.10.1965, whereby the respondents in the said suit were declared to be holding right, title and interest over the disputed lands. Moreover, but obviously the author of Annexure P-10, after assigning credence to the verdict (supra), thus obviously appears to orient his reason making process whereby obviously she appears to maneuver herself towards deciding the lis but on merits, also thereby declining relief to the petitioner Gram Panchayat concerned. 4. In consequence, instead of making the said discussion, on merits of the lis, rather the author of Annexure P-10 was required to be simpliciter making an order, on the petitioner’s application hence asking, for leave to dismiss the lis (supra), as withdrawn. However, the said order dismissing the petition occurs at the conclusion of Annexure P-10, but only after an ad nauseam detailed discussion adversarial, to the petitioner becoming made in Annexure P-10. The said opinion adversarial to the petitioner was required to be refrained from it becoming so made. Necessarily when the said opinion adversarial to the petitioner therein is founded upon a declaratory decree, as, made in favour qua the respondent, in the lis (supra), thus by the civil court concerned. For adding strength and vigor to the above made conclusion, it is deemed but necessary to extract the entire order enclosed in Annexure P-10. Necessarily when the said opinion adversarial to the petitioner therein is founded upon a declaratory decree, as, made in favour qua the respondent, in the lis (supra), thus by the civil court concerned. For adding strength and vigor to the above made conclusion, it is deemed but necessary to extract the entire order enclosed in Annexure P-10. “This petition has been filed under Section 42 of the Consolidation (Prevention of Fragmentation of Holdings) Act, 1961, for amendment of the Scheme under the Act. In this petition, the real controversy highlighted by the petitioner is that the D.D.P.O. Hoshiarpur, has decided the question of title to this land in dispute, in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Mehangrowal, Now the question that arises for determination is as to who is the final Authority for deciding the factum of title to the land. In my opinion, civil court is such a competent and final authority for this purpose and the question of title to the land in dispute, has already been decided by the Civil Court in case No.53/90 as is evident from the copy of the Judgment produced by the Gram Panchayat, village Mehangrowal, on behalf of the share holders of the village wherein their joint possession to the extent of 1/48 shares, is shown. The question of share of the share-holders who approached it. The Gram Panchayat has not led any positive evidence or stated anything to the effect that it has preferred any appeal against the said order dated 25th October, 1965 passed by the Civil Court. Rather, it appears that instead of filing appeal against the judgment of the Civil Court, the (Gram Panchayat) han chosen a new forum and obtained an order from the D.D. P.O. in its own favour. In my opinion, against the order of Civil Court, on the question of title, neither D.D.P.O. nor even myself, can become the Judge. Rather, at best we can be impleaded as pities. I am further constrained to observe that the petitioner, has tried his best to arouse the bias/influence of the Department, in favour of the Gram Panchayat in this Court. It obtained 12 adjournments and then, the arguments were heard. Rather, at best we can be impleaded as pities. I am further constrained to observe that the petitioner, has tried his best to arouse the bias/influence of the Department, in favour of the Gram Panchayat in this Court. It obtained 12 adjournments and then, the arguments were heard. But, I have come to the conclusion that the entries in the last jamabandi at the time of the Consolidation of Holdings, have to be seen, which are shown in the column of ownership are of the right/share-holders and in the column of cultivation, it is shown to be in cultivating possession of the land owners. In reply to the plea of the counsel for the petitioner, that the Gram Panchayat (Petitioner) has been leasing out the land in dispute, to the lessees, the counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner Gram Panchayat has been apportioning/distributing the income derived from the receipt of chakota amount, amongst the land owners. I have not been able to go through and decipher the receipts produced before me. In para No.5 of the petition, the words” in-collusion with the consolidation staff” has been mentioned. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the impugned judgment/order was passed ex-parte. In my opinion, the scheme and repartition were published while sitting in the village and the Gram Panchayat itself in member of the Advisory Committee. Hence it seems strange to allege that the scheme and repartition were made ex-parte. It would also be necessary to mention here that after the completion of the arguments and before the pronouncement of the Judgment, the petitioner did mention about the decision of the F.C. (Revenue), regarding the mutation which has not been shown to me, so far and in this matter, the counsel for the Second Party (respondent) argued that the decision is in favour of the respondent. The mutation does not confer title. So, the petitioner should get the question of title to this lend determined, from a civil court, because the civil court has already decided the question of title. So in the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, when I was about to dismiss this petition, the counsel for the petitioner has filed an application Marked ‘G’ for withdrawal of this petition, which is on the file. Hence, I had to order the dismissal of this petition, as withdrawn. However, no permission is given for re-filing the same. Hence, I had to order the dismissal of this petition, as withdrawn. However, no permission is given for re-filing the same. Hence this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with no permission to file again). 5. Resultantly when the said discussion on merits becomes insegregable component of Annexure P-10, thereby when it carries an adversarial tone against the Gram Panchayat concerned. In sequitur but obviously it becomes a part of the order, as became made by the Additional Director concerned. 6. Subsequently, though through case No. 84 of 1991 (Annexure P-11/A) whereby the petitioner-Gram Panchayat strived to re-espouse the causes of action and reliefs as were declined in case No.53 of 1990, but, the Additional Director concerned, through Annexure P-11/A becoming made thereons, passed the hereinafter extracted order. “This petition has been filed under Section 42 of the Punjab Consolidation (Prevention of Fragmentation of Holdings) Act, against the scheme and repartition. Earlier also, this petition was dismissed as withdrawn, on 8.3.91. However, in the earlier order of dismissal, various reasons were given as to why that petition could not be accepted. The petitioner had withdrawn the earlier petition as it could not be allowed and in the order of dismissal, it was mentioned that the petitioner is not permitted to re-file the petition, because eleven adjournments were taken and after the arguments, when the judgment was to be pronounced, the petition was got dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner was not permitted to re-file the petition. Therefore, this petition cannot be reheard because, it would tentamount to review of my earlier order dated 8.3.91.” 7. The above made annexures cause grievance to the petitioner and leads it to institute the instant petition before this Court. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. One Baldev Chand-respondent No. 1 in the lis (supra), being an Ex. Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, was allegedly in unauthorized and illegal possession of the disputed lands. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat concerned filed an application to which case No. 160/1983 was assigned. The said case was filed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) 1961 Act (hereinafter for short called as the ‘Act of 1961’), thereby seeking restoration of possession from the said Baldev Chand, to it, of land measuring 543 kanals-13 marlas. The said application was allowed through an order made by the Collector, Hoshiarpur, on 06.09.1990 (Annexure P-2). The said application was allowed through an order made by the Collector, Hoshiarpur, on 06.09.1990 (Annexure P-2). The reason for making the said order of eviction was premised hence on mutation No. 903 becoming sanctioned on 29.08.1957, in favour of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat concerned hence qua the disputed lands. 9. Moreover, respondent No. 24, and his brother Satpal were also alleged to be in illegal possession of panchayat land measuring 473 Kanals. Resultantly the Gram Panchayat concerned, filed an application under Section 7 of the ‘Act of 1961’ seeking the ejectment of the above from the panchayat lands. The said petition was dismissed by the Collector Hoshiarpur through an order made thereons on 02.01.1987. The said dismissal order, as made on the Gram Panchayat’s application led it to file an appeal thereagainst before the Joint Director, Panchayats who qua his order drawn on 24.05.1988 accepted the Gram Panchayat’s appeal and quashed the order passed by the Collector concerned. The order of the Appellate Authority is appended as Annexure P-3. 10. Furthermore, Babu Ram, Milkhi Ram sons of Tulsi Ram, Sheela Devi and Vidya Devi daughters of Smt. Kaushalaya Devi were also alleged to be in unauthorized occupation of the panchayat lands, whereupon the Gram Panchayat concerned, instituted an application under Section 7 of the ‘Act of 1961’ hence for seeking ejectment of the afore from the panchayat lands. On the said application, the Collector, Hoshiarpur through an order drawn on 24.09.1980 ordered for the ejectment of the encroachers over the panchayat lands. The respondents-aggrieved therefrom preferred an appeal before the Joint Director, Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner). The said authority through an order drawn on 28.05.1985 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of ejectment, as became made by the Collector, Hoshiarpur. 11. The above orders acquire conclusive and binding effect and as they are not demonstrated, before this Court, to become successfully challenged either before the statutory authority concerned, or before this Court, through institution before it of writ petition(s) at the instance of the aggrieved concerned. Consequently, the effect thereof, is that, the reliance as made by the authorities, who respectively drew Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3, thus upon the contentious mutation thereby, boosts an inference, that the said mutation whereby the disputed lands were assigned to the panchayat concerned, rather was correctly drawn. Consequently, the effect thereof, is that, the reliance as made by the authorities, who respectively drew Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3, thus upon the contentious mutation thereby, boosts an inference, that the said mutation whereby the disputed lands were assigned to the panchayat concerned, rather was correctly drawn. Conspicously when the said verdict(s) of eviction, upon, the apposite eviction petition(s), as became instituted before the Collector concerned, thus by the Gram Panchayat concerned were drawn subsequent to the making of the contentious mutation (supra). Moreover, when the basis of the said verdict(s) of eviction was, upon recording of the contentious mutation No.903 drawn in the year 1957. 12. The contentious attestation/making of mutation bearing No.903 as stated (Supra), was recorded in favour of the Gram Panchayat concerned, on 29.08.1957. However, in the year 1967, a representative suit was instituted on behalf of the villagers of the mohal concerned, before the civil Court concerned. The said suit was instituted by Baldev Chand respondent in misl (Supra) being Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned. On the said suit, a compromise decree dated 27.04.1967 was made, and, thus resulted in the said civil suit becoming as such decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. In sequel to the decree of the civil Court as was rendered in the year 1967, the plaintiffs in the year 1985, ensured the recording of mutation No. 1234 in respect of the suit lands, rather in their favour. 13. The making of the said mutation was contested by the Gram Panchayat before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hoshiarpur who accepted the contention (supra), through his making an order on 31.12.1985. 14. The order of 31.12.1985 was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Collector Hoshiarpur who accepted the said challenge through his drawing an order on 25.06.1985. The above acceptance of the plaintiffs appeal against the order of 31.12.1985, led the Gram Panchayat concerned, to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Jalandhar Division) who also dismissed the said appeal, through his drawing an order on 05.12.1988. The order drawn on 25.06.1985 and also the order drawn on 05.12.1988, became challenged by the aggrieved Gram Panchayat concerned, through theirs filing a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. To the said revision petition ROR No. 328 of 1988-89 became assigned. The order drawn on 25.06.1985 and also the order drawn on 05.12.1988, became challenged by the aggrieved Gram Panchayat concerned, through theirs filing a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. To the said revision petition ROR No. 328 of 1988-89 became assigned. The said revision petition was accepted by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab through his making a verdict as is enclosed in Annexure P-7. 15. For appreciating, the vigor and tenacity of the reason, as became recorded through an order, as drawn in Annexure P-7 whereby the jurisdictional value of the decree of the Civil Court, thus became undermined, it deemed imperative to extract the reasons, whereons, such a conclusion became founded. The said reasons occur in paragraph No. 5 of Annexure P-7, paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter. “5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the 1d.counsel for the parties and examined the record in detail. The civil court decree which is not reflected in the revenue record for a number of years become time barred with the lapse of time and is hit by the provisions of Indian Limitation Act. Moreover, a time barred decree cannot be binding on the parties within the meaning of Section 37-B of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. It is interesting to note that Sarpanch alone made a compromising statement in the court which parted 16419 kanals 10 marlas (2052 acres 3 kanals 10 marlas) out of the total land of 43693 kanals 8 marlas (5461 acres 5 kanals 8 marlas) to the respondents and it is no where mentioned that the Sarpanch consulted the panchayat or the panchayat passed any resolution confirming the action of the Sarpanch involving valuable land. Similarly the Revenue Officers are not bound to give effect to the compromise decree of the Civil Court which is not acted upon sincerely. In such circumstances the parties are required to knock the door of the civil courts to get their right established. In this case the decree was passed on 27.4.1967 and no steps were taken by the respondents to implement the same after passing of more than 12 years. The A.C. Ist rightly ignored the decree as the right that accrued under the decree was deemed to have extinguished long before 1983 and could not be revived in the mutation proceedings to the detriment of the present holders of the land. The A.C. Ist rightly ignored the decree as the right that accrued under the decree was deemed to have extinguished long before 1983 and could not be revived in the mutation proceedings to the detriment of the present holders of the land. So the mutation was rightly rejected by the A.C. Ist by his order dated 31.12.1985. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case cited a s AIR 1988-SC-400 has decided the matter as under:- “Under R.3 as it now stands, when a claim in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement of compromise, the compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a complete agreement between them. To constitute an adjustment, the agreement or compromise must itself be capable of being embodied in a decree. When the parties enter into a compromise during the hearing of the suit or appeal, there is no reason why the requirement that the compromise should be reduced in writing in the form of an instruments signed by the parties should be dispensed with. The court must, therefore, insist upon the parties to reduce the terms into writing.” 16. The above made reason has immense value. Moreso, when there is no challenge to the inferences (supra) as occur in Annexure P-7. 17. Resultantly thereby the rejection of the mutation bearing No.1234 as became attested in favour of the plaintiffs in the civil suit concerned became affirmed. In sequel the mutation No.903 was restored. ANALYSIS OF THE UN-CHALLENGED VERDICT RECORDED BY THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, ON ROR NO. 320 OF 1988-89. 18. There is no wrangle amongst the contesting litigants before this Court about the makings of Annexure P-7 whereby there was restoration of the order made by the Assistant Collector on 31.12.1985 whereby mutation No. 1234 as became attested by the revenue officer concerned, was quashed and set aside. 19. Moreover, when thereby mutation No.903 became upheld. Therefore, when the said Annexure P-7 remains un-challenged. Resultantly conclusive and binding effect is to be assigned thereto. The factum of the finality and conclusivity becoming assumed by Annexure P-7, thus is of utmost importance. 19. Moreover, when thereby mutation No.903 became upheld. Therefore, when the said Annexure P-7 remains un-challenged. Resultantly conclusive and binding effect is to be assigned thereto. The factum of the finality and conclusivity becoming assumed by Annexure P-7, thus is of utmost importance. The reason is but simple, that the Financial Commissioner concerned in Annexure P-7, had aptly rejected the jurisdictional value of the decree of the civil court concerned, whereby the plaintiffs suit for declaration in respect of the disputed lands, thus became decreed. 20. The above decree of the civil Court, as is apparent, on a reading of the opinion occurring in the impugned annexure(s), became planked upon, thus by the authority who drew it, whereby it declined relief to the Gram Panchayat concerned, as, appertaining to rescinding or the cancelling the scheme whereby there was re-partition of the lands of the Gram Panchayat concerned in favour of the plaintiffs concerned. 21. Though the said opinion occurs prior to the verdict of dismissal as withdrawn being made upon verdict (Annexure P-10), yet the said opinion is completely adversarial to the Gram Panchayat concerned. Reiteratedly, the authority who drew the said annexure, was required to omit or refrain from making any opinion banked, upon, the decree of the civil Court concerned, rather she was for reason (supra), required only to make a simpliciter order of the lis being dismissed as withdrawn, thus on the petitioner’s application for permission to withdraw it. 22. The opinion making process or the decision making process embarked upon the author of Annexure P-10, is in the said misl but oriented, in favour of the respondents. Resultantly the basis of Annexure P-10, thus is the decree of the civil Court. However, since Annexure P-10 became drawn on 1991 whereas Annexure P-7 became drawn in the year 1990. Therefore, unless Annexure P-7 was challenged and become quashed and set aside, in a writ petition instituted by the respondents therein, thus before this Court, thereupon, the jurisdictional value of Annexure P-7, whereby there was blunting of the jurisdictional value of the decree of the civil Court concerned, rather remained intact. 23. Therefore, unless Annexure P-7 was challenged and become quashed and set aside, in a writ petition instituted by the respondents therein, thus before this Court, thereupon, the jurisdictional value of Annexure P-7, whereby there was blunting of the jurisdictional value of the decree of the civil Court concerned, rather remained intact. 23. Since, there is no challenge to Annexure P-7, thereby the unsettling thereby of the verdict of the civil Court concerned, and which however became relied upon by the author of Annexure P-10, thus makes Annexure P-10, to be a misplaced reliance thereons, De hors, the fact that the misl concerned was at the fag end of Annexure P-10 permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn. 24. Apart from the above, also the decrees of eviction, as became passed against the judgment debtors concerned, in eviction petition(s) filed by the Gram Panchayat concerned, thereby seeking the ejectment of the encroachers over the panchayat lands, and which were planked upon mutation No.903 drawn in the year 1957, do also acquire binding and conclusive effect, especially when there is no material placed on record, that the validity of the said verdicts, rather became challenged or that the said challenge became accepted in a writ petition, thus becoming instituted before this Court, by the aggrieved concerned. 25. Emphasizingly hence when thereins there is no raising(s) of a dispute of title, thus at the instance of the judgment debtors concerned, nor when thereons, there was any decision favourable to the judgment debtors concerned. Therefore, rather the binding and conclusive verdicts of eviction, as, became pronounced against the judgment debtors concerned, in the apposite eviction petition(s) concerned, thus did estop the estate holders concerned, to either access the civil Court concerned, with any plea therein that they acquired any right, title or interest as owners qua the disputed lands. 26. Therefore, also it appears that the private estate holders concerned, who claim right, title and interest over the disputed lands thus on the basis of the civil court decree, which however has not been assigned any credence, by a binding and conclusive verdict, as enclosed in Annexure P-7, thereby the respondents concerned were not entitled to, as declared in Annexure P-7, derive any leverage from the decree of the civil court concerned. Therefore, it appears that the impugned annexures are drawn through the respondents thereins suppressing from the authority(ies) concerned, both Annexure P-7 and also the conclusive and binding verdicts of eviction, as became made against them in petitions cast under Section 7 of the ‘Act of 1961’. 27. In summa, it appears that the respondents in the lis (supra), rather than placing all the above material before the authority(ies) concerned, who drew the impugned annexures P-10 and P-11, thus took to solitarily place before her only the decree of the civil Court concerned. In case all the relevant material (supra) became placed before the authority concerned, thereby she may not have proceeded to make any reliance upon the decree of civil Court concerned, rather would have granted relief to the petitioner Gram Panchayat. Resultantly it appears that the above withholdings or suppressions from the author of Annexures P-10 and P-11, rather by the respondents in the misl concerned, is but manifestative of prima facie, theirs practicing before her thus vices of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, which are required to be deprecated. FINAL ORDER OF THIS COURT. 28. In aftermath, this Court finds merit in the writ petition, and, with the above observations, the same is allowed. The impugned Annexures P-10 and P-11 are quashed and set aside. However, the unchallenged verdict Annexure P-7 is affirmed and maintained. 29. In sequel, in terms of Annexure P-7, mutation No. 903 shall continue to hold operation and if in the consolidation scheme or in the misal hakiyat, as became drawn in pursuance thereof, no reverence is meted thereof, thereby the consolidation authorities are directed to in accordance with law, forthwith assign credence thereto. 30. The said corrections be made in accordance with law. 31. Since the main case itself has been decided, thus, all the pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.