GURNAM SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL KAITHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court made on 11/6/1979 in Writ Petition No. 1944 of 1979.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the appellants came into possession of the lands in question as tenants 20 years prior to 1975 and the lease had expired in the year 1975. Thereafter, no fresh lease was granted to the appellants. It is not in dispute that the lands are Shamlat Deh lands vested in the Gram Panchayat. The High court relying upon its earlier decisions has held that under Section 7 of the Punjab Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 read with Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules the Assistant Collector, First Class has been empowered to have the appellants ejected and the notice issued under Rule 20 cannot be said to be invalid. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Shri P. P. Juneja, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that Rule 19 is bad in law since the Act did not define as to who is an unauthorised occupant; that Rule 19 cannot specify an unauthorised occupant; and that, therefore, it is beyond the rule-making power. We find no force in the contention.