BHARTU Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner ocupied Shamilat land bearing Killa Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Rectangle No. 13 and Killa Nos. 13 and 14 of the Rectangle No. 20 in village Maina, Tehsil and District Rohtak. On November 16, 1964, the Panchayat filed a petition for his ejectment from that land under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , (hereinafter the Act). The petitioner admitted that the land was owned by the Panchayat but alleged that he was in ocupation thereof as a tenant and the Panchayat could claim the rent from him through the Revenue Court. The Assistant Collector vide order dated March 24, 1966, found that the petitioner was not a tenant of the land. He was ordered to be ejected. The Panchayat then filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, against the petitioner claiming damages from him for the period he remained in unauthorised ocupation of the Panchayat land. The Collector, Rohtak, vide his order dated November 24, 1967 (Annexure 'B') assessed the damages at Rs. 2,000/- at the rate of approximately Rs. 100/- per acre. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order (Annexure 'B') and the same was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, vide order dated May 1, 1968, (Annexure 'A'). It is against these orders Annexures 'A' and 'B' that the present writ petition is directed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the Panchayat did not claiom rent/damages in the petition filed by them on November 16, 1964, under Section 7 of the Act, it stood debarred from claiming the same under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959. I see no force in this contention. The Panchayat could not claim rent or damages from the petitioner for the period he remained in unauthorised possession of the Panchayat land under Section 7 of the Act. Such a claim could only be made under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959. There was, therefore, no bar for the Panchayat to move the authority under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959.

(3.) Another point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the damages assessed by the Collector, Rohtak, vide order Annexure 'B' are excessive. I see no force in this contention as well. The petitioner remained in unauthorised ocupation of 6 acres of Nehri land for three years. The Collector assessed the damages approximately at Rs. 100/- per acre annually for Nehri land. The assessment made is reasonable and warrants no interference.