- (1.) The petitioner impugns the original and the appellate orders the Collector and the Commissioner dated November 30, 1977, and February 19, 1979, respectively whereby his application under section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , (for short, the Act) has been dismissed. The primary grouse of the petitioner is that he was not allowed any fair and proper opportunity to lead his evidence in support of his claim. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find that the stand of the petitioner is wholly sustainable. In order to support his above-noted plea, the petitioner has alleged in paragraphs 6 to 13 of his petition as follows: "6. That on 30.9.1977 respondent No. 3 (the Gram Panchayat) submitted its reply to the section 11 petition. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 (the Collector without framing any issue in the case despite a request to that effect having been made by the petitioner's counsel, adjourned the case to 11.10.1977 for recording the evidence of the parties, though it was insisted on behalf of the petitioner that his evidence should be recorded first. Anyhow, the case then stood posted for 11.10.1977 for the recording of the parties' evidence. 7. That 1.10.1977 and 2.10.1977 being Saturday and Sunday respectively, the petitioner moved an application on 3.10.1977 for summoning the petitioner's witness through the assistance of the Court. On this application respondent No.2 passed an order on 4.10.1977 thereby directing the deposit of the diet money in the Court and further saddling the petitioner's counsel with the personal responsibility of getting the witnesses served and also producing them in the Court on 11.10.1977. A copy of the order is attached as Annexure P.3. 8. That on 11.10.1977 respondent No. 2 was not available on duty in his Court room for judicial work right upto 3.30 p.m. and it was also rumoured that the possibility of his arrival and doing the Court work was very remote. Since the petitioner's undersigned counsel Shri Sunder Lal of Patiala was to attend the Rajpura Courts in connection with some other case and for that reason it was not possible for him to keep on waiting for the arrival of respondent No.2 he made a request to the Reader of the Court for adjourning the case to some other date. The counsel for the opposite party also agreed to this and consequently by mutual adjustment the case was adjourned by the Reader of the Court to 24.10.1977. After this adjournment the petitioner and his counsel Shri Sunder Lal Advocate Patiala left the Court campus to attend to their respective pieces of business. 9. That some time after the petitioner and his counsel had thus left the Court Campus, respondent No. 2 came to his Court room and on his directions the adjourned case was called on for hearing once over again. Since the petitioner and his counsel had already left the Court campus, as stated above, they could not respond to the call and in their consequential absence respondent No.2. after making a note in his order dated 11.10.1977 in respect of the absence of the petitioner and his counsel started recording the evidence of respondent No.2. Thus in their absence the statement of witnesses for the Gram Panchayat were recorded without there being any cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner. It is curious to note that respondent No. 2 did not choose to dismiss the petitioner's case in default of appearance and after recording the statements of the R.Ws. again adjourned the case to 24.10.1977, that is to say that the same date to which the case had already been adjourned by the Reader of the Court mentioning in the order that the petitioner brings his evidence on 24.10.1977. A copy of the said order is attached as P.4.;