the decision made by this Court on 25.11.2010, whereby it relegated the lis to the Assistant Collector, is but however per incuriam, the engraftment of Section 13-A, through Haryana Act No.9 of 1999, whereby the jurisdictional competence of the Assistant Collector, to try a declaratory suit, thus became snatched. Moreover, the order of remand is not a final, binding and conclusive termination of the lis. The reason for making the above inference becomes sparked from the trite factum, that through the engraftment of the relevant provision, thus thereby the jurisdictional competence of the Assistant Collector to try a title suit, rather became snatched and that too, when as stated (supra), the lis had not terminated through a binding and conclusive verdict becoming made thereon, but had remained alive but through an order of remand being made by this Court, which but only results in the restoration of the lis to its original number. Moreover, as above stated, the date of restoration of the lis to its original number, becomes the date, wherefrom a computation is made, whether then the jurisdictional competence becomes vested or not become vested in the Assistant Collector. Obviously but on the above plank, it is to be concluded that when, on its remand to the Assistant Collector, thus the lis became restored to its original number, besides when at the above stage, through engraftment of Section 13-A, through the Haryana Act No.9 of 1999, whereby the jurisdictional competence of the Assistant Collector to try a title suit, rather became snatched. Consequently, in the garb of the direction (supra) as became made by this Court, the challenged orders cannot become clothed with any aura of legality.
