GRAM PANCHAYAT JETSAR Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR SRI GANGANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances, which led to the filing of this writ petition brought for the purpose of getting the order of Addl. Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 6th May, 196)8 set aside may be briefly narrated as follows : - According to the petitioner, shop No. 69 situated in Tel Bazar No. 1 Mandi Jetsar was leased out by it to respondent No. 2 Meharumal. After sometime res-pondent No. 2 encroached upon the open lands (Sideways) lying on both sides of this shop and when asked upon Harnand Singh Overseer on 25 9 1965 reported that the respondent No 2 had encroached upon land measuring 10' x 5' on the eastern side and 10 x 4' on the western side of the shop vide Annexures 1 and 2. THE Sarpanch of the petitioner Panchayat, therefore, on that very day issued a notice to the respondent No. 2 for removing the encroachments vide Annexure 3. When the respondent No. 2 did not comply with the notice Annexure 3, nor did he appear before the Panchayat and show any cause, he was fined a sum of Rs. 15/-and was further directed to remove the encroachments within a week vide Annexure 4. When Annexure 4 also proved fruitless and respondent No. 2 did not appear, he was on 14-10-1965 further fined at the rate of Re. 1/- per day till the encroachments were not removed. He was further asked to remove the encroachments vide Annexure 5. It might be stated here that vide notice Annexure 4 this respondent was asked to show cause why he should not be fined at the rate of Re. 1/- per day, because of his not obeying the order of the petitioner. Even Annexure 5 made no effect upon respondent No. 2.

(2.) THEREAFTER a notice Annexure 6 was issued again to respondent No. 2 on 1-12-1967 for removing the encroachments and paying the fine, but with no effect. Another notice Annexure 7 dated 17-1-1968 was issued to him for removing the encroachments, otherwise the petitioner was to do the same at his cost. The res-pondent refused to accept notices Annexures 6 and 7. On 17-1-1968 another notice Annexure 8 was issued to respondent No. 2 as to why the shop No. 69 be not leased out to any other. Respondent No 2 refused this notice as well On 18-1-1968, however, the respondent No. 2 presented a representation to the petitioner vide Annexure 10. This is to the effect that notices till now issued to him were illegal and void and were issued because of personal ill-will with him, otherwise there were other persons and relations of the petitioner also who had encroached upon the lands of the panchayat, but they were not touched.