LADLI PERSHAD JAISWAL Vs. COLLECTOR KARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent raises the question whether the Collector was justified in directing that the petitioner should be thrown out of the land which was leased out to him under the provisions of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act.

(2.) In June, 1951 the Collector of Karnal made a public announcement that in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Utilization of Waste Lands Act, 1949, he proposed auctioning the leases of culturable waste lands situate in the Karnal District. The leases were sanctioned on the 26th June, 1951 and the petitioner who obtained leases of two plots of land measuring 274 and 400 acres respectively was put in possession of the said plots on the 5th August, 1951. He laid out large sums of money in reclaiming the land and making it fit for cultivation but was later surprised to discover that on the 9th September, 1952 the Collector had passed an order cancelling his lease in respect of 556 acres of land and directing that the possession of the land be taken from him. The order of cancellation was based on the fact that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions of the lease as announced at the time of auction by his failure to pay the annual rent of the land on or before the 15th January, 1952 and by his failure to execute a bond in favour of the Collector. The petitioner promptly sought the intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained an order staying his eviction from the property.

(3.) The learned Judge before whom the petition came up for hearing came to the conclusion that it was different to hold an enquiry with the object of ascertaining whether the terms of the agreement had been violated, that in the absence of evidence it was difficult to decide whether the term of the lease had or had not been contravened, that the order passed by the Collector did not appear to have been passed under the provisions of the Act and that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Collector it was open to him to pursue the remedies which are available to a litigant under the ordinary law of the land. The petitioner is dissatisfied with the order and has presented an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.