DALER SINGH Vs. NAFE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are that in the year 1955-56 when the State Government was making serious efforts to boost up the agricultural production, the then Chief Minister of Punjab, Sardar Partap Singh Kairon, gave out that the persons of the families who were prepared to put in hard work and bring the waste and the jungle land under cultivation, could be allotted such land in District Karnal of which village Arnauli formed part at that time. There was about 8223 Bighas, 1 Biswa of land. In the revenue record, it was described as Shamlat Deh, Hasab Rasad Zari Khewat. The petitioner and others were put in possession of this land as tenants.

(2.) AN application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short to be referred as "the Act") was filed against the petitioner as well as 75 lessees on the ground that the occupants were in unauthorised possession since 1971. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kaithal passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner and other lessees on January 13, 1977. They preferred appeal against the order of ejectment. The case was remanded and ultimately, the ejectment order was passed which was challenged by way of filing a civil writ petition.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he is the grandson of Dial Singh who was one of the writ petitioners before this Court. He died in 1982. After his death he succeeded as lessee. He has paid lease money upto 1999-2000. Abruptly, the Gram Panchayat stopped to receive the lease money. Therefore, the petitioner sent a sum of Rs. 75/- being lease money for the year 2000-2001, but it was returned with the remarks "Refusal". The respondents in utter violation of the judgment of this Court, Annexure P-1, have again filed application for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he is in unauthorised occupation of the land. There is no averment in the petition that the tenancy in favour of the petitioner was ever terminated. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of the land until and unless the tenancy is terminated in accordance with law. On the basis of this application, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade has issued notice to the petitioner to appear in his Court. Thus the action of the respondent by making averment that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the land amounts to wilful violation of the judgment of this Court.