GURMUKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 669 of 2001 (Gurmukh Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others) and 13565 of 2001 (Kishore Upadhyay and others v. State of Haryana and others), as identical questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, but for the difference that whereas in CWP No. 669 of 2001, the petitioners were granted lease for a period of 5 years, in CWP No. 13565 of 2001, the petitioners were granted lease for a period of 10 years. Bare minimum facts that, however, need a necessary mention have been extracted from CWP No. 669 of 2001.

(2.) AUCTION of the land measuring 98 acres culminated in favour of the petitioners on 21.11.1997 (Annexure P-1). As projected in the petition, the auction took place in presence of more than 80 persons of the village. Block Development Officer, Sonepat, was also present. All legal formalities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1961') were duly taken care of and the terms and conditions of the lease were set out and signed by the parties as would be evident from the lease agreement (Annexure P-2) of the even date. The petitioners are said to have accepted the terms and conditions and deposited the rent of the land along with 25% advance. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have also paid the lease money upto date. They spent a huge amount to get the land in a suitable condition for the purpose of growing poplar trees. It is further their case that more than 30000 poplar trees have been planted by them on the land, some of which, of course, died due to the soil being degraded and there being no canal water or electricity provided as per the terms and conditions of the agreement by the Gram Panchayat. Costs incurred by the petitioners are stated to be roughly to the tune of Rs. 70 lacs. Preceding the auction on 4.11.1997, the IInd respondent herein passed resolution that the land which was leased out to the petitioners needs to be auctioned. On 20.10.1999, however, the IIIrd and IVth respondents made a representation/complaint in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat under Section 10-A of the Act of 1961 pointing out illegalities in the lease granted in favour of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the Assistant Collector without issuing any notice to them cancelled the lease by an ex parte order. The said order was challenged before the Collector, Sonepat, who after hearing the parties, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector to re-adjudicate the matter after issuing notice to all concerned and giving an opportunity to produce proof and to decide the case within a period of one month. The Collector also directed that the petitioners would enhance the rate of lease at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per acre, which was initially fixed at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre, even though he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Vide order dated 13.7.2000, Assistant Collector cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioners. Constrained, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Court of Collector, Sonepat, which, too, has since been dismissed, vide order dated 14.12.2000. The petitioners, in the present petition have called in question the order passed by Assistant Collector (Annexure P-11) dated 13.7.2000 and order passed by the Collector (Annexure P-13) dated 14.12.2000.

(3.) IN response to the notice issued by this Court, the IVth respondent, namely, Gram Panchayat, which is the only contesting respondent, has filed written statement, wherein it has, inter-alia, been pleaded that the petitioners are residents of New Delhi and had taken land on lease for a period of 5 years and none of the petitioners resides at Sonepat. It requires to be mentioned here that the petitioners themselves have pleaded that they are residing at Delhi and Sonepat. It has further been pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, if plants were not to grow up within 5 years, then the Gram Panchayat was bound to extend the lease. In this way, the lease period will be more than 5 years as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed. The land was leased out for the purpose of sampling only and was not leased out for agricultural purpose. Averment made in the petition that the auction had taken place in presence of more than 80 persons or that 15 persons have participated in the auction has been emphatically denied. On the other hand, it has been pleaded that the land was leased out to the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat contrary to the terms and conditions and contrary to Rule 6(1)(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1964'), wherein it has been mentioned that the land which is fit for cultivation cannot be leased out for a period exceeding two years and in any case the land cannot be leased out for the period exceeding 5 years. According to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, the Gram Panchayat cannot lease out cultivable land to a person exceeding 10 acres or more. Rules 6(2) and 9 of the Rules of 1964, read thus :-