MAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C . M. Nos. 19957 and 19958 are allowed. Two judgments one of this Court and the other of Hon'ble Supreme Court are taken on record. However, the same are not applicable for the reasons to be recorded in the later part of the judgment.

(2.) IN both these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the auction notice issued by the Gram Panchayat. The land, admittedly, belongs to the Gram Panchayat. It has not been disputed that the disputed land was leased out to the petitioners in the year 1995 on yearly basis. The stand of the respondent Gram Panchayat that the petitioners have not paid the lease money for the last two years, has not been negatived by filing any replication. The counsel for the petitioners could not show to the Court any receipt regarding payment of lease money from 1995 onwards. Since the petitioners are not paying the lease money to the Gram Panchayat they can surely not challenge the auction notice. The judgment given by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 11990 of 1993, Shingara Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on March 3, 1997, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case as the same was rendered on the basis of a compromise effected between the parties. Equally inapplicable is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Civil Appeal No. 15402 of 1996 alongwith other connected appeals (Charan Singh etc. v. State of Punjab and others), decided on 27.11.1996. The facts in Charan Singh's case (supra) are that the appellants were granted lease of uncultivable waste land being members of the Scheduled Caste measuring 55 kanals 15 marlas of land in the State of Punjab under some policy and that land was reclaimed by them. Action was taken against them for their eviction as unauthorized occupants. It was held that the appellants were lessees and that they had no right to remain in possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellants were inducted into possession of the land which was reclaimed by them and they remained in possession after the expiry of the lease and, therefore, the Government was required to regularise their possession and assign the land in accordance with its policy. The appellants were directed to make necessary application within four weeks to the competent authority for regularising their possession in the light of the Constitutional objective of rendering them socio-economic justice. The facts of the instant case are altogether different. The petitioners were enjoying the possession of the disputed land as lessees on payment of lease-money which they, admittedly, did not pay. They were never given the possession of the waste land under any policy. It is not their case that under any policy they were given the land in dispute. Once they have defaulted the lease money, the Gram Panchayat was perfectly justified in putting the same to an auction. The lessees surely cannot default the payment of lease money and then contend that the Gram Panchayat has got no right to put the same to auction. If such lessees are allowed to contest the auction notice, the Gram Panchayat would surely not be in a position to give the land on yearly lease and meet its day-to-day expenditure.