MANSHA SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER REVENUE AMBALA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BARREN or Banjar land measuring 98 kanals 14 Marlas in area, being a part of the shamilat or common land of village Bodhni, Sub Tehsil Guhla in Karnal District and vesting as such in the Gram Sabha, respondent No. 3, was taken on lease by the petitioner in an auction held in 1956 for a term of 20 years, beginning from kharif 1956 to Rabi 1976. A regular lease deed was executed in his favour by the sarpanch on 16-4-1956. The petitioner claims to have spent a good deal of expense and labour in reclaiming this land and in making it fit for cultivation. He also claims to have made a number of improvements like sinking of tubewells, erection of structures for his own residence and as a shelter for his cattle etc. The lease was, however, cancelled by the Collector Kaithal, respondent No. 2 by his order dated 9-1-1969 (Annexure 'b' to the petition) on the application of the sarpanch under S. 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 on the ground that the lease was detrimental to the interests of the Panchayat. A revision (Annexure 'c') filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner of Ambala Division, respondent No. 1, by his order dated 15-7-1969 (Annexure 'd/1' ).

(2.) THE petitioner has, therefore, filed this Civil Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders and proceedings taken against him by the respondents for the cancellation of the lease. It is alleged that leases had been granted under similar circumstance to 24 other parties and that in their case the leases had only been varied by the Collector Kaithal and that the lessees had been allowed to continue in possession on payment of an enhanced rent which was equal to 2 1/2 times the rate of rent originally agreed upon. Annexure 'a' is the order passed by the Collector in the case of the 24 other leaseholders and the petitioner is alleged to have been discriminated against in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was also willing to accept a revision of the terms of the lease on the same lines as had been done in the case of the other 24 lease-holders as may appear from the order Annexure 'b' of respondent No. 2. This singling out of the petitioner for the cancellation of the lease is alleged to be mala fide and also violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights of property guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India. The land is said to have been acquired for the Gram Sabha which would be a 'state' for the purposes of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner being a small landowner had to be paid compensations at the market rate for the deprivation of his property. The lease as granted in 1956 was perfectly valid according to the law then prevailing and could not be varied or cancelled to the petitioner's disadvantage. This assumption of a drastic remedy of cancellation of the lease under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 in addition to the regular remedies available under the ordinary civil law is said to vest the respondents with discriminatory and unbridled powers without laying down any guidelines and the vires of Section 10-A of the Act and the rules framed thereunder has also been challenged.

(3.) IN his return, respondent No. 3 has joined issue with the petitioner as to whether the latter was a defaulter or whether he had been paying the rent regularly. The impugned orders Annexures 'b' and 'd/1' may, however, show that this matter is no part of the real controversy between the parties and that the irregularities in payments of rent or defaults of this nature had in no way led to the passing of the impugned orders. The respondents may further appear to have wrongly denied the petitioner's averment that he was willing to accept a revision of the terms of his lease on the same lines as had been done in the case of the other lessees in this village. In this connection, reference could be made to paragraph 2 of the Collector's order dated 9-1-1969 (Annexure 'b' ). It may appear that an ex parte order had been passed earlier against the petitioner and that it had been reviewed and set aside on petitioner's application. Petitioner's absence or non-appearance on any hearing cannot be taken as his refusal to abide by the terms of the compromise offered to the other lease-holders in the village and after this ex parte order had been set aside the petitioner had prayed that he may be allowed to keep the land in his cultivating possession till the expiry of the lease period or for another term of 2 years by increasing the rent to 2 1/2 times of the previous rate of rent as had been done in the case of 24 other lessees of this very panchayat. The prayer may appear to have been declined because it was resisted by the counsel for the Panchayat who had argued that the land had been leased out to the petitioner in 1956 at a nominal rate of 6 annas per bigha per year while the prevailing market rates for such leases were not less than Rs. 21/- per bigha or rs. 100/- per acre. As regards the enhancement of the rate to 2 1/2 times in the case of other lessees, the counsel for the Panchayat had pointed out that an appeal had been filed by the Panchayat who was not satisfied with that meagre enhancement. It may, however, be observed that according to paragraph 11 of the writ petition which has been admitted by the respondents, this appeal filed by the Panchayat has since been dismissed by respondent No. 1 and as a result the other 24 leaseholders are continuing to be in possession of their respective holdings under the revised terms mentioned above.