HARBANT SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT BODHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the writ petition is to the orders dated 4.7.1985 (Annexure P-2) and 16.12.1985 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Guhla and Collector, Kurukshetra, by which the application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act (for short the Act) filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed, the possession of the petitioner was held to be illegal and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the petitioner took the land in dispute on lease from the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 1 in the year 1955 for a period of 20 years. After the expiry of the period of 20 years, the Gram Panchayat took steps to evict the petitioner. In order to have its hold on the land, the petitioner filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat that he has become marusi tenant and is entitled to continue in possession on the same terms of the lease as before. The suit filed by the petitioner was decreed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Kaithal, on 7.11.1978 on the basis of the statement made behalf of the Gram Panchayat to the effect that the petitioner has become a marusi tenant and is entitled to continue in possession on the same terms of lease as before. Permanent injunction and consequential relief was also granted in favour of the present petitioner. However, after a period of 6 months of the passing of the civil court decree, the land in dispute was put to auction on 7.6.1979. The petitioner was the highest bidder and, therefore, he was given the lease of land for a period of 2 years i.e. from 7.6.1979 to 7.6.1981. The land which was on rent of Rs. 12.50 per killa per annum earlier was raised to Rs. 100/- per killa per annum. On expiry of the lease period on 7.7.1981, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that as the lease period had expired, therefore, the petitioner was in illegal possession of the suit land and hence he was liable to be evicted. The Assistant Collector First Grade, Guhla, vide his orders dated 4.7.1985 held that as the lease period of two years had come to an end, therefore, the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the land in dispute and ordered his eviction. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector, Kurukshetra, who also vide his orders dated 16.12.1985 upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Guhla. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised in the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that as the petitioner had taken a fresh lease of the suit land on 7.6.1979 i.e. after the passing of the Civil Court decree, therefore, he was bound by the terms and conditions of the fresh lease. That lease having come to an end on 7.6.1981, therefore, the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the land in his possession after 7.6.1981. The rent having been increased from Rs. 12.50 per killa per annum to Rs. 100/- per killa per annum also shows that the petitioner himself did not act on the Civil court decree passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Kaithal, dated 7.11.1981. Thus, the petitioner cannot take benefit of the decree of the Civil Court. As the petitioner had taken the land on lease afresh on 7.6.1989, therefore, he is governed by the terms and conditions of this lease which was to annure for a period of two years and on the expiry of the same, the petitioner had become an illegal occupant of the suit land. Both Assistant Collector First Grade, Guhla, and Collector, Kurukshetra vide orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 have rightly held that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the land after the expiry of the fresh lease which ended on 7.6.1981. Resultantly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.