JARNAIL SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order 11.3.2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner exercising the powers under Section 10(7) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The Commissioner has allowed the appeal which was filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and has held that the lease of land was illegally granted to the petitioner; and respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who were prepared to deposit 8 times more the lease amount in the accounts of the Panchayat, were directed to do the needful Accordingly, the lease was to be given to respondent Nos. 3 to 5. There is further condition imposed for enhancement of the lease amount by 5% every year and the recovery of loss caused to the Gram Panchayat has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, which was to be determined. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the aforementioned order by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 5.5.2001 the land measuring 21 kanals 6 marlas belonging to Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 2) was auctioned in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder. A resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 5.5.2001 (Annexure P-1) recorded the petitioner to be the highest bidder. The lease amount is alleged to have been deposited which was Rs. 2700/- per year and it is claimed that the payment has been made till date and the copies of the receipt have been placed on record as Annexures P-7 and P-8. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed an application before the District Development and Panchayat Officer for cancellation of the auction of the land by invoking Section 10-A of the Act. The main ground to challenge the auction is that no due publicity was given and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were ready to take the land at much higher rate. It is claimed that the application was filed after 6 months with the object of harassing the petitioner as the auction was held after full publicity, public notice and publication. The District Development and Panchayat Officer dismissed the application on 3.7.2002 (Annexure P-3), which resulted in filing of an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 10(7) of the Act. As there was some delay in filing the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed. The Commissioner allowed the appeal vide the impugned order dated 11.3.2003 and the relevant part of order reads as under :-

(3.) THE stand taken by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in their reply is that the petitioner had filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Dhuri and had applied for ad interim injunction, which was declined. It has been asserted that in the face of the suit and failure of the petitioner to disclose that fact should have resulted into dismissal of the petition. However, it has been admitted that the nature of the land in the revenue record is "banjar" and the land was given for a period of 5 years @ Rs. 130 per bigha whereas the rate was more than Rs. 1000 per bigha. They have further claimed that they are still ready and willing to obtain the lease of land on the aforementioned rate and have deposited Rs. 21,600/- on 17.4.2003. (Annexure R-1).