Surya Kant, J.Notice of motion to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 only at this stage. On our asking, Mr. Rajinder Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf.

2. Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

3. Since no order adverse to the interest of respondent No. 5 is being passed at this stage, it is not necessary to serve respondent No. 5 nor any counter-reply from respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is required at this stage.

4. The petitioner is Gram Panchayat of village Haveli Khurd, Tehsil and District Roopnagar. It alleges that its land measuring 36 kanal 1 marla has been illegally transferred to the Municipal Council, Roopnagar in purported compliance to Government Instructions dated 30.04.1976 (Annexure P-1). Reference is made to some of the revenue entries including the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, to urge that Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land but the Municipal Council has been shown to be in its cultivating possession. It appears that the Municipal Council also asserted its title qua the land in dispute, hence the petitioner-Gram Panchayat resolved and filed a declaratory suit under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 who exercises the powers of Collector under that Act, declined to entertain the suit and has returned the petition in original to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. In this backdrop, a direction has been sought to the Collector to entertain the petitioners suit and decide the same in accordance with law.

5. It may be mentioned here that in respect of the land which vests in Gram Panchayat, jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under the 1961 Act.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel, it appears to us that whatever may be the fate of the suit on merits, the Collector cannot refuse to entertain the same. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat having invoked the quasi-judicial powers of the Collector, it is imperative upon the said Court to pass some order in accordance with law. We will say nothing more at this stage. This order, however, shall not be constructed as an expression on the merits of the petitioners claim nor we have observed anything against the Municipal Council, Roopnagar. The writ petition is thus disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2, namely, the Collector under the 1961 Act, to entertain the suit-cum-petition filed by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly. Dasti.