and must fail. It is not disputed that the Gram Panchayat of village Panniwala Ruldu had instituted eviction proceedings under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 against the plaintiffappellant and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dabwali had passed eviction orders dated 9.10.1997 and had further imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- per acre upon the plaintiff-appellant for having held the suit land which actually vested in the Gram Panchayat. Against the order dated 9.10.1997, Exhibit D3, the plaintiff-appellant preferred appeal before the Collector, Sirsa and the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.5.1998, Exhibit D4, upholding the Gram Panchayat to be owner in possession of the suit property. It has come in evidence in Exhibit D4 that the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat had effected entries in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiff-appellant without there being any resolution of the Gram Panchayat to such effect. The finding recorded by the Collector, Sirsa was to the effect that the entries in favour of the plaintiff-appellant were on account of a collusion and connivance between him and the then Sarpanch and accordingly, the entries had been set aside. Even the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar had upheld the orders of Collector, Sirsa vide order dated 26.7.1999. Both the Courts upon due appraisal of documentary evidence on record, have returned a finding that the competent authority under the Act has held that the suit land vests in the Gram Panchayat. Both the Courts have also held that the civil Court would have no jurisdiction to go into the question of title as to whether suit property vests or does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, and the jurisdiction of the civil Court had been specifically ousted in terms of the statutory provisions of Act.
