1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge laid is to the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 18.04.2024 whereby the summary eviction orders passed against the appellants under Section 7A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the "Act"), have been upheld by the appellate authority as well as the High Court.

3. The core issue to be determined is whether the subject land is Shamlat Deh or it vests in the proprietors, including the appellants, who are statedly in possession from the time of their forefathers. The answer to this question revolves around the entries in the revenue record. In this regard, it appears that the entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari for the year 19461947, as reiterated subsequently in the records for the year 19611962, have not been correctly appreciated by the authorities under the Act. It goes without saying that if the appellants are able to prove exclusive possession of their forefathers on the specified khasra numbers, in that event, it may be difficult to hold that summary eviction proceedings under Section 7A of the Act would be maintainable. In such like cases, there would arise a title dispute, to be decided by the Collector as a civil suit under Section 11 read with Section 13 of the Act. However, we do not propose to express any final opinion in this regard. All that we wish to observe is that the revenue authorities are obligated to consider the original entries in the revenue record that existed prior or immediately in the year 1946-1947. The reasons for subsequent change in the entries, which are claimed to have been in favour of the Gram Panchayat, and whether such change was made by following the prescribed procedure are also required to be examined.

4. Despite the appellants raising an objection of title, the eviction proceedings under Section 7A were disposed of by the Assistant Collector, instead of converting the matter into a suit under Section 11. Further, the appeal from the order of the Assistant Collector was filed before the Collector, Panipat.

5. Considering the facts of this case but without expressing any opinion on merits, the appeal is allowed in part. The eviction order, the appellate order, and the impugned judgment of the High Court are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of Collector, Panipat to decide the eviction proceedings as well as title objections under Sections 7A and 11 of the Act afresh and in accordance with law. The parties are permitted to lead additional evidence, for which two opportunities to both sides may be given, failing which no further opportunity shall be granted. Appropriate orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of six months.

6. The parties are directed to maintain status quo during pendency of these proceedings, which would necessarily mean that neither the appellants will create any third-party rights or change the nature of the land, nor the Gram Panchayat will make any attempt to dispossess the appellants.