Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.)BY way of this order, we shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12949 and 12950 of 2001 as they involve adjudication of common questions of law and facts. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 12949 of 2001. Gram Panchayat Mangwal, Tehsil and District Sangrur prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 04.12.1996 (Annexure P2), passed by the Joint Development Commissioner, Panchayat Officer, Punjab, accepting the appeal of respondent No. 3, thereby setting aside the order of eviction passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (Collector), Sangrur, in favour of the petitioner - Gram Panchayat.
(2.)THE petitioner - Gram Panchayat filed an application, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises and Land (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act') for eviction of respondent No. 3 from the land, in dispute, by alleging that respondent No. 3 is in illegal possession of the Panchayat's land and has no right, title or interest to retain its possession. The application filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (Collector), Sangrur, vide order dated 29.01.1996(Annexure PI). Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Collector, Jhanda Singh, respondent No. 3, preferred an appeal before the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) Punjab (exercising the powers of 'Commissioner'), which was allowed thereby setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Collector.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land, in dispute, is mushtarka malkan and the same vests in the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of management and control. Respondent No. 3 is in illegal possession of the land, in dispute, therefore, he was rightly ordered to be evicted by the Collector in exercise of jurisdiction, under the 1973 Act. The Appellate Authority, without recording any finding that the respondent No. 3 has any right to remain in possession of the land, in dispute, proceeded to decide the appeal in his favour, without considering the provisions of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1948 Act') and the nature of mushtarka malkan land and the rights of the Gram Panchayat in the said land in regard to control and management. It is further argued that the Appellate Authority has misdirected itself by holding that as the land, in dispute, is not 'shamilatdeh', as per provisions of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 and respondent No. 3 is a proprietor of the village, the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat is not entitled to seek eviction of the respondent.

(3.)COUNSEL for the contesting respondent, however, submits that the Gram Panchayat filed an eviction application raising a specific plea that the land, in dispute, was leased out in favour of the respondent and he failed to re -deliver its possession on expiry of the lease period. It is argued that the Gram Panchayat failed to adduce any evidence much less documentary to substantiate its plea with regard to creation of lease in favour of respondent No. 3. It is further argued that as the Gram Panchayat has failed to establish its plea with respect to creation of lease, the Gram Panchayat has no right to seek eviction of the respondent, who is in continuous possession of the land, in dispute, being a proprietor of the village.