ROSHAN LAL Vs. SECRETARY GOVT OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Roshan Lal and others through present writ filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector Karnal vide which they had been evicted from the land in dispute under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

(2.) ONE of the points raised in the writ petition is that a lessee whose lease has already expired and who is in possession, can be ejected from the land in accordance with law i. e. either by filing a suit or under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. For the aforestated stand, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 17276 of 1991 "om Parkash v. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade," 1, decided on April 1, 1992: (1992-2) 102 P. L. R. 97 (D. B. ). I was one of the members of the Bench in the Civil Writ Petition aforesaid. While dealing with the matter aforesaid, the Court held "present is a case of a lessee whose lease has already expired and is in possession. He can be ejected from the land in accordance with law either by filing a suit or under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. The observations made above are in direct conflict with a Division Bench judgment of this Court in "jaimal v. Commissioner, Ambala Division"2, 1969 P. LJ. 378. While deciding Jaimal's case (supra), the Court took into consideration Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. Rule 19 which defines unauthorised occupation of Shamlat Deh reads thus: