SANTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANTA Singh, a member of the scheduled caste, at present said to be residing in Kumhar Mandi, in Ludhiana town, was leased out some Nazool land measuring 6 Bighas 15 Biswas 6 Biswansis (Pukhta) situate in village Hassanrora comprised in Khasra No. 44 in the year 1966 by an open auction. He continued in possession as a lessee for the years 1966 -67, 1967 -68 and 1968 -69. The lease was renewed every time for one year and the period of the last lease expired on 15th June, 1969, but he continued to retain possession of the demised land. The lease money was fixed at Rs. 200 for the first year and later raised to Rs. 300 and Rs. 500 respectively, for the subsequent two years, but there is no evidence available on the record as to the terms and conditions on which the lease was granted and neither of the counsel is in a position to throw light in this regard. The writ petition is silent on this point and in the return filed by the Collector, Ludhiana, Respondent 2, only the factum of lease is mentioned. It is stated in the return that the land in dispute is within the urban limits of Ludhiana and there is no rebuttal by the Petitioner. The Petitioner could have controverted this averment by filing a replication of its correctness was sought to be contested. On expiry of the lease, the Collector seems to have issued an order, as stated in para 10 of the return, directing that possession of the land be got delivered to the District Public Relations Officer. Ludhiana, who is presumably the Secretary of the Guru Nanak Quincentenary Celebration Committee as well. A Kanungo was deputed to get the possession delivered. The Collector was under the impression that as the lease had expired, the Petitioner could no longer remain in possession and could be ejected there from by an executive fiat.

(2.) THE Petitioner apprehending his dispossession under the alleged order of Respondent 2 moved this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to eject the Petitioner except in accordance with law. It may be mentioned that no copy of the order has been produced by either of the parties, though it is admitted by Respondent 2 that the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, ordered dispossession.

(3.) MR . R.P. Bali; learned Counsel for the Petitioner; has vehemently urged that on the basis of the Rules, he is entitled to the transfer of the land on payment of price as may be fixed in accordance therewith. It is next contended by the learned Counsel that apart from the question of considering the eligibility of the Petitioner for the transfer of the land under the Rules, the latter cannot be ejected otherwise than in accordance with the procedure prescribed by ordinary law of the land and that there is no power in the Collector to forcibly dispossess the Petitioner. The contention in other words, is that no matter that the lease has expired, the Collector, like any other lessor, has to seek his proper remedy in a civil or a revenue Court, as may be permissible under the law.