GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE BARROT AND ANOTHER Vs. SHRI SUNIL AHUJA SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) THANESAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated the 13th October, 1970, drawn up by the Collector, Thanesar, and served on the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Barrot in Tahsil Thanesar, District Karnal (Annexure "A" to the petition) are not in dispute and may be stated. The said Gram Panchayat (petitioner No. 1) passed a resolution on the 11th of June, 1970, to the effect that land measuring 62 Kanals 12 Marlas detailed therein be leased out by public auction for the purpose of running a brickkiln. The auction contemplated in the resolution took place on the 21st of June, 1970, when Shri Ved Barkash Singal petitioner No. 2, turned out to be the highest bidder whose bid was accepted by the Panchayat in a resolution passed on the same date, a copy of which was sent to the block Development and Panchayat Officer. Ladwa (respondent No. 2) who was the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti and to whose approval the auction was subject under the provisions of Clause (a) of sub rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. On the 23rd of June, 1970, respondent No. 2 returned the said copy to the Panchayat with the remark "Seen". Interpreting this remark as the approval by respondent No. 2 of the auction, petitioner No. 1 executed in favour of petitioner No. 2 a lease of the said land for a period of five years on the 25th June, 1970, and the referred the possession of the land to him. Thereafter petitioner No. 2 started operations for the installation of a (sic) on the land and incurred expenditure in that connection. These operations had been in progress for more then.: 3 1/2 months when the impugned notice was received by the Sarpanch of petitioner No. 1. The notice is in the following terms:

(2.) LEARNED counsel are agreed that the Collector could not take any action in respect of the lease granted by petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2 unless the same was covered by the provisions of Section 10 -A of the Act which is reproduced below:

(3.) No other point has been urged before me and, for the reasons stated, I quash that part of the impugned notice which reads thus: