LACHHMAN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Lachhman Dass seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 4-3-1985 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangrur, vide which damages twenty times of yearly lease money were imposed upon him in proceedings instituted under Rule 20 A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be refrred as 1964 Rules)

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as are appelled out from the impunged order, reveal that an application was filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat of Village Kakra, district Sangrur, against the petitioner wherein it was stated that land measuring 34-bigbas 11-biswas was taken on lease by the petitioner through auction for a period of five years commencing 1978- 79 and ending 1982-83 for Rs. 1800/- per year. The term of lease expired in 1983, but the petitioner did not part with possession of the land, thus, constraining the Gram Panchayat to file an application under Rule 20-A of the 1964 Rules, demanding damages 20 times of lease money for unauthorised occupation of the petitioner. The application aforesaid was contested and in the reply filed by the petitioner, it was, inter alia, pleaded that possession of the entire land, subject matter of lease, was not handed over as some area was taken possession of only after two years after commencement of the lease also that material improvment had been made in the land in dispute as also that the land was not shamilat deh. The District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangrur before whom the application came up for final decision after recording evidence of the parties, ordered that the petitioner should pay damages, twenty times of the lease money, as he was in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute. It is against this order, as mentioned earlier, that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE basic plea of the petitioner, as is made out from the pleadings of the petitioner, is that after imposing proprato cut on the proprietors and earmarking the land so parted with by the proprietors for various village common purposes, the land in dispute was left out as surplus area, i. e. Bachat land. With a view to substantiate the plea aforesaid, Khatauni Paimaish that came into being at the time of consolidation proceedings has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The land, as is described in Annexure P-1, i. e. Khatauni Paimaish, it is pleaded could not be shamilat deh as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, as the same was owned by the proprietors of the village in accordance with their shares. It is for that precise reason that in the revenue records the land was shown to be owned by the proprietors of the village (Jumla Mushtarka Malkan-Hasab Rasad Khewat) and in the column of possession of the revenue records the same was described to be occupied by the proprietors. Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 has been annexed to demonstrate the entries of the revenue record in the manner, indicated above. It is on the strength of revenue record, which depicts the land to be owned by the proprietors of the village that it is pleaded that the same was not shamilat deh and as such proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rules 20-A of 1964 Rules were wholly illegal and so is the order Annexure P-4.