! !" # $ $"% &'( GRAM PANCHAYAT ...Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...Respondents # $ )*$"% &'( GRAM PANCHAYAT ...Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR PANCHAYATS AND ORS ...Respondents  '  +#'! ,
,
',
,
 +#'! ,
-
.,,
Present:$ Mr. NPS Mann, Advocate, for the appellant in both cases. Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No.4 (in LPA$330$2016) ***** ,
',
,
 /!% #(   '$)$# $"  # $ $"   The prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 545 days in filing the appeal Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the delay of 545 days in filing the appeal is condoned. HARISH KUMAR 2026.03.30 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment LPA$330$2016 (O&M) & (2) LPA$375$2016 (O&M) '$)0$# $"# $ )*$" The prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 192 days in filing the appeal Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal is condoned. ' 1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP$5747$1992, by which the writ petition filed by the private respondents against the order of eviction under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, has been allowed. 2. By this order, we propose to dispose of LPA$330$2016 and LPA$375$2016 by a common order. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from LPA$ 330$2016. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that without even taking into consideration the actual revenue record, in which the land in question has been shown as
   , the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 has been passed in the writ petition deciding the question as to whether the respondents, who are claiming themselves to be the owners of such land, can be evicted from therein or not.  Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even as per the Full Bench judgment passed in CWP$ 2318$2002, titled as
          
   /decided on 08.11.2013, if a land is in HARISH KUMAR 2026.03.30 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment LPA$330$2016 (O&M) & (3) LPA$375$2016 (O&M) nature of “Mushtarka Malkan” but has been described as “
  , the management of the same has to be done by the Gram Panchayat and the same can only be done by Gram Panchayat in case the possession of same remains with the Gram Panchayat, which fact has been ignored by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been able to point out that the revenue record which is being brought in play, according to which the land in question has been described as “
  has even been discussed by the learned Single Judge as the impugned judgment has been pronounced by considering the property as “Mushtarka Malkan”. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. Once, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge has been passed by ignoring the relevant revenue record, which are very material for deciding whether the land in question is to be managed by the Gram Panchayat or not and in the corollary whether the said land is
   or not, restraining the Gram Panchayat from evicting the respondents from land in question, which according to the Gram Panchayat and revenue record is
  cannot be upheld. The revenue entry wherein the land has been described has to be looked into before ascertaining whether the eviction of even the proprietors can be argued  in case the same land is found to be a
 . 7. Keeping in the totality of the circumstances, as the impugned judgment is perverse to certain facts already on record, the impugned HARISH KUMAR 2026.03.30 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment LPA$330$2016 (O&M) & (4) LPA$375$2016 (O&M) judgments dated 08.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the cases are remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision. 8. Let the parties appear before the Learned Single Judge on 20.04.2026. 9. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. %,
',
,
(   %-
.,,
( '12 /"   
 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No HARISH KUMAR 2026.03.30 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment