JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) Gram Panchayat of village Khayala, Block Narot Jaimal Singh, Tehsil and District Pathankot through its Sarpanch, instituted a petition cast under Section 7 of the Punjab Common Village Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961). In the petition (supra), it was averred that the respondent therein, who is the petitioner before this Court, had made an encroachment, upon rafai-am rasta or gair mumkin rasta, which exists on khasra No. 134 (to the extent of two marlas). Through a decision made on the said petition, on 1.9.2009, the learned Collector concerned, ordered for eviction of the respondents, from the said rafai-am rasta or gair mumkin rasta, which but was meant for the common user of the entire village proprietary body concerned, and, was not meant for any raising of any constructions thereons, at the instance of the respondents. The respondent became aggrieved from the said order of eviction, and, hence appealed there against before the learned Appellate Court concerned. The learned Appellate Court concerned, through a decision made on 29.12.2010, upon Appeal No. 258 of 2009, after affirming the verdict, as became drawn earlier by the learned Collector concerned, hence dismissed the above statutory appeal. The above concurrently made order of eviction, against the respondent, led him to earlier approach this Court through his instituting CWP No. 18372 of 2012. This Court through a decision made thereons on 20.3.2013, had passed the hereinafter directions, upon the authorities concerned. "We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and in view of agreement between counsel for the parties, allow the writ petition, set aside orders dated 01.09.2009 and 29.12.2010, passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur and the Director Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, and remit the matter to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurdaspur, for deciding the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, afresh, and in accordance with law, within three months for the parties putting in appearance before him, on 29.04.2013." 2. After remand of the lis to the learned Collector concerned, the latter proceeded to, through an order, drawn on 4.7.2014, decline the relief of eviction to the Gram Panchayat concerned. After remand of the lis to the learned Collector concerned, the latter proceeded to, through an order, drawn on 4.7.2014, decline the relief of eviction to the Gram Panchayat concerned. The declining of relief of eviction, to the Gram Panchayat concerned, became rested, upon the factum, that in the demarcation report No. 350 of 3.7.2014, the alleged encroachment, on the gair mumkin rasta or rasta aam, was as a matter of fact, rather not revealed thereins to be made thereons. However, the aggrieved therefrom, preferred an appeal thereagainst before the learned Commissioner concerned. The learned Commissioner concerned, through a verdict made on 11.1.2016, upon the statutory appeal No. 310 of 2014, dis-concurred with the view taken by the learned Collector concerned, and, obviously accepted the above appeal. The petitioner becomes aggrieved from the order, as made by the Appellate Authority concerned, on the above statutory appeal, and is led to motion this Court. 3. If the demarcation report, which became relied upon, by the learned Collector concerned, was a lawfully made demarcation of the petition land, and, also if the said demarcation report was tendered besides proven, in accordance with law, before the Collector concerned, thereupon, utmost sanctity was to be assigned thereto. However, it does not appear from the discussions, as made by the learned Collector concerned, that the said demarcation report, which but reveals that no encroachment is made on the gair mumkin rasta, at the instance of the petitioner concerned, rather became assigned credence yet only, upon the said demarcation report becoming both tendered, and, besides becoming proven in accordance with law. Therefore, in the face of the above, lack of discussion in the order, as made by the learned Collector concerned, obviously the dependence, if any, as made on the said demarcation report was a weakly made dependence thereons. 4. Be that as it may, even though the appellate Court concerned, may have on the above ground, accepted the statutory appeal bearing No.310 of 2014, as became constituted before it, at the instance of the Gram Panchayat concerned, but yet given the fact, that this Court has noticed the above infirmity in the order, drawn by the learned Collector concerned. Therefore, this Court is of the view, that the order, as made by the learned Collector concerned, does but require its being set aside. Therefore, this Court is of the view, that the order, as made by the learned Collector concerned, does but require its being set aside. The reason for making the above conclusion stems from the factum, that unless the demarcation report, as became relied upon by the learned Collector concerned, was tendered before him, in accordance with law, and, also became proven, in accordance with law, but only after an opportunity to the aggrieved Gram Panchayat concerned, to raise objections against its acceptance, and/or the learned Collector concerned, ordering for a fresh valid demarcation, which but came also to be both tendered, and, besides proven, in accordance with law. Resultantly, then this Court would have assigned vigour to the above adopted lawful recourses, by the learned Collector concerned. However, it yet does not emerge, from the discussion, as made by both competent authorities below, qua whether either the Collector concerned, in assigning credence to the demarcation report, his ensuring that the said demarcation report became tendered into evidence nor is there any revelation in the discussion, as made by the learned Collector, that it was proven, in accordance with law, but only after an opportunity to the Gram Panchayat concerned to raise a protest against its acceptance. Therefore, after setting aside both the verdicts, drawn by the learned Collector concerned, and, by the learned Appellate Court concerned, this Court is of the view that the lis be remanded to the learned Collector concerned, for his ensuring that after his calling, for a fresh valid demarcation of the petition land, and, his thereafter ensuring that the said demarcation report, becomes lawfully tendered into evidence, and, besides becomes lawfully proven, but only after an opportunity being assigned to the aggrieved concerned, to raise protest against its acceptance, by the learned Collector concerned, that the latter shall proceed to place reliance upon the said demarcation report, as become validly prepared, in respect of the petition land(s). 5. With the above observations, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The lis is remanded to the learned Collector concerned, to make compliances with the above made directions. The learned Collector is directed to restore the petition to its original number, and, is directed to within three months from today, make a fresh decision thereons, but in accordance with law, and, after hearing all the affected persons. 6. The petition stands disposed of.