- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the contesting respondents.
(3.) The short question raised by the appellant-Gram Panchayat before us is whether the contesting respondents could have invoked the provisions of Section 42 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short "the Act") after a period of almost 34 years when the consolidation proceedings were completed in the year 1959-60 and they applied under Section 42 of the Act on 20/1/1994. That question was not considered by the High court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In an identical situation a bench of two learned Judges of this court in Civil arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6989 of 1995 decided on 8/12/1995, has taken the view that in such circumstances the matter should be remanded to the High court for a fresh decision also keeping in view the question of reasonableness of delay or otherwise in moving the authorities under Section 42 of the Act. Following that decision, therefore, this appeal is allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversies between the parties. The writ petition is restored to the file of the High court with a request to the High court to proceed with the said writ petition in accordance with law and also to consider, amongst others, the question whether there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the contesting respondents in moving the authorities under Section 42 of the Act. We may also mention at this stage that learned counsel for the appellant sought reliance on another judgment of this court rendered in Gram Panchayat v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings regarding applicability of the Punjab Village Common Land Act and the procedure to be followed in such case. As the writ petition is being restored to the file of the High court even that question obviously will be open to be canvassed by the appellant and it will be equally open to the contesting respondents to oppose the same in accordance with law. As the appeal is being disposed of today, the interim order granted by us would naturally come to an end subject to the liberty reserved to the appellant to move for appropriate interim relief before the High court. We also request the High court to decide the writ petition as expeditiously as possible as the question in controversy concerns the entire village. No costs. [Connected CASE] (BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ. ) GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SIDH. THROUGH SARPANCH ZORA SINGH. Appellant; Versus additional DIRECTOR, consolidation OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB AND OTHERS. Respondents. Civil No. 14786 of 1996, decided on November 21, 1996 1 See connected case below 271 ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. It is not disputed that consolidation proceedings were completed in the village in the year 1953-54. It is further not disputed that prior to consolidation proceedings, the entry regarding Khewat No. 78 measuring 1000 bighas 16 biswas was made in the Jamabandi as "shamlat Deh Hasad Rasad Raqba Khewat". It is also not disputed that after the consolidation, the entry in the revenue record was in similar terms. The Additional Director, Consolidation by the order dated 1/5/1990 changed the mutation entries in the revenue record and distributed part of the land amongst the right holders. We are of the view that after the enforcement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the question of ownership could only be decided by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. Mr. Palli, learned counsel for the right holders, has contended that the area which was bachat area was distributed amongst the right holders. It is a question to be decided by the Collector. The right holders may raise all the points, if they wish to, before the Collector. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Director dated 1/5/1990 and also the order of the High court dated 12/9/1990 and remand the case to Collector, District Patiala to decide the case afresh in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. No orders as to costs.;