CHAMAN LAL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Bhiwani, dated 29th July, 1976, and that of Collector, Bhiwani, dated 25th March, 1977.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioners, who are right-holders of village Prem Nagar, were found to be in unauthorised occupation of the land owned by the Gram Panchayat and consequently on an application filed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Assistant Collector ordered the eviction of the petitioners from the land and also inflicted penalty at the rate of Rs. 600/- per hectare of land upon the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector. It appears that the order qua imposition of penalty only was challenged before the Collector. The Collector observed that the petitioners were given possession of the land in question by -the Consolidation Authorities and, therefore, the petitioners could not be termed to be in unauthorised possession of the land. He further recorded a finding that no penalty should have been imposed upon them but further went on to hold that in view of the mandatory provisions in the Act for imposing penalty, he could not help, but he reduced the penalty to 10 per cent of the total amount.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that in view of the findings of the Collector that the petitioners were not in unauthorised possession, no penalty could be levied. As observed by the Collector, the land remained in the possession of the petitioners for some time as the possession was delivered to them by the Consolidation Authorities. The learned Collector himself came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not in unauthorised occupation. That being the finding, the further finding recorded by the Collector that since the law for imposing the penalty was mandatory, therefore, he was bound to impose the penalty appears to be without jurisdiction. The penalty can only be imposed on a person who is found to be in unauthorised occupation of the land. In view of the earlier finding of the Collector, the subsequent finding of imposing the penalty thus cannot be sustained.