Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash & Others vs The Collector on 4 March, 2014
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh
CWP No.8488 of 1993 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 04.03.2014
CWP No.8488 of 1993
Om Parkash & others ...Petitioners
Vs.
The Collector, Mahendergarh & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Shashikant Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul on 17.11.1992 allowing an application of the Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), whereby the present petitioners were ordered to be evicted from land measuring 7 kanals 7 marlas and also to pay penalty at the rate of 9500/- per hectare per year from 22.07.1985 i.e. the day when the lease in favour of the petitioners was cancelled.
The petitioners had the remedy of appeal against the said order, but have not availed such remedy. The petitioners were inducted as lessees by the Panchayat on 20.04.1985, but the said lease was cancelled soon thereafter on 21.07.1985. Since the petitioners continued to be in possession of the same, the Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act, which has been allowed, as mentioned above. Kumar Vimal 2014.03.07 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8488 of 1993 2
It may be noticed that the petitioners filed a suit for injunction to protect possession after the cancellation of the lease before the Civil Court, which was decreed. But the order of cancellation of lease was neither challenged nor set aside. It has further come on record that the land in question was acquired by the State vide notification dated 06.12.1990 published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Since the possession of the land has already been taken by the State, the only question is of payment of penalty imposed vide the order impugned. After the cancellation of lease, the petitioners are unauthorized occupants. The penalty imposed cannot be said to be unreasonable, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE 04.03.2014 Vimal Kumar Vimal 2014.03.07 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh