Judgment
CWP No.14678 of 1992 and connected matters -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of decision :
1. 8.2013 CWP No.14678 of 1992 Mukhtiar Singh ........Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CWP No.14827 of 1992 Surjan Singh ........Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.S.Sandhawalia Present:- Mr.Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the respondents --- Jasbir Singh, J.
(Oral) This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing not CWP No.14678 of 1992 titled as 'Mukhtiar Singh v.
The State of Punjab and otheRs.and CWP No.14827 of 1992 titled as 'Surjan Singh v.
The State of Punjab and otheRs.as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
The facts are being taken from CWP No.14678 of 1992 for dictating this order.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 17.8.1992 (P-2) passed by respondent No.2 and to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order.
Kumar Ashwani The petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of Gram 2013.08.22 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14678 of 1992 and connected matters -2- Panchayat's (respondent No.3) land measuring 85 kanals 15 marlas.
His ejectment was ordered on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').on 1.10.1991.
Admittedly, that order had become final.
The Gram Panchayat filed an application claiming mesne profits, as per the provisions of Rule 20-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (in short 'the Rules').Amount was claimed @ ` 400/-per kanal i.e.an amount of ` 34,300/-for one year and for three yeaRs.amount claimed was ` 1,02,900/- for the entire land.
As per the provisions of Rule 20A of the Rules, 20 times of the amount so claimed, was imposed as a penalty and the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of ` 20,58,000/-towards user and occupation of the land, as claimed by the Gram Panchayat.
Before passing an order on 17.8.1992, opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner by the Collector.
No objection was raised regarding jurisdiction of the Collector to hear the matter, as is being not agitated.
It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that application does not lie under Rule 20A of the Rules because it was not a case of a lessee, over staying the period of lease, in Gram Panchayat's land.
Be that as it may, because this question was not raised before the Court below, we are not going to entertain that argument.
Before proceeding further, it will be beneficial to reproduce the provisions of Rule 20A of the Rules :- “20-A.
Damages (1) – If any person who is a lessee of any land Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.22 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14678 of 1992 and connected matters -3- vested of deemed to have vested in a Panchayat does not deliver to the Panchayat vacant possession of the land immediately after the expiry of the period of lease he shall, for the period he fails to do so, be liable to pay damages to the Panchayat equivalent to twenty times the amount which would have been payable to the Panchayat had the lease of such land continued during that period.
(2) – The provisions contained in sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to be one of the terms of each lease of land granted by the Panchayat after the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) (Third Amendment) Rules, 1978 in Punjab.”
It is mandatory that a lessee, who failed to vacate land of the Gram Panchayat after expiry of the lease period, shall be made liable to pay damages to the Gram Panchayat, equivalent to twenty times the lease amount, for the period of un-authorised occupation.
It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that after ejectment of the petitioner on 1.10.1991 and on dismissal of appeal/writ petition etc., the possession was vacated by the petitioner.
Taking note of above facts & circumstances when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we are not inclined to interfere in the controveRs.whether application under Rule 20A of the Rules was competent or not.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the Gram Panchayat's land.
If that is so, he is supposed to pay rent/mesne profits to the Gram Panchayat for use and occupation of the land in dispute i.e.measuring more than 85 kanals, may be under any provision of law.
Facing the situation, counsel for the petitioner states that as per the above said provision, stipulation of payment of twenty times of the Kumar Ashwani damages is the maximum limit.
The authority was supposed to look into 2013.08.22 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14678 of 1992 and connected matters -4- the circumstances under which the petitioner was in possession and then impose damages.
Imposition of maximum damages is not justified.
To say so, reference has been made to a judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in 'Bachan Singh and others v.
The District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Amritsar and others 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 769'.
We have seen the judgment referred to above.
When dealing with a similar controversy, learned Single Judge observed as under :- “5.
I have considered the rival contentions raised before me.
A perusal of the provisions of Rule 20-A would show that such a plea appears to be maintainable for claiming the compensation.
Nothing substantial could be pointed out as to how application under Rule 20-A would not be maintainable.
Otherwise also, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise this plea for the fiRs.time before the writ Court since no such plea was ever raised before the authorities concerned.
The plea of the petitioners that asking them for depositing 20 times of the amount assessed as Rs.12,000/-per year is exorbitant and unreasonable would sound justified.
Though Rule 20-A provides for liability to pay 20 times of the amount payable had the lease continued but that is the maximum which would be available and not that it has to be so awarded.
The amount as directed, as such, sound excessive.
At the same time, it is to be noticed that the petitioners had remained in unauthorised possession of this land belonging to the government for a period of nearly 30 years without paying any rent whereas the damages have been assessed only for the last 3 yeaRs.6.
Taking all these aspects into consideration and to balance the equity, it would be appropriate to direct that the amount of damage, as assessed, be reduced to a sum of ` 3,00,000/-instead of the amount as assessed.
It is so ordered.
The petitioners pray for permission to pay this amount in installments as they are poor farmeRs.The petitioners shall be permitted to deposit this amount Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.22 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14678 of 1992 and connected matters -5- in three equal installment payable after every four months.
In case, the petitioners commit default in payment of amount due, the amount shall be recoverable with interest @ 9% per annum from the date it is due to the date of payment, if otherwise permissible as arrears of land revenue.”
We concur with the finding given above and taking note of the same, as per the ratio of the judgment of Bachan Singh's case and to settle equity between the parties, it is ordered that order passed by the Collector on 17.8.1992 be modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay amount @ 400/-per kanal i.e.` 34,300/-for one year, for three years the amount would come to ` 1,02,900/-.
The said amount is ordered to be paid with interest @ 6% P.A.(simple) from 17.8.1992.
The amount be paid within 6 months in two equal installments.
If it is not so paid, the Gram Panchayat be at liberty to claim the said amount, which has been imposed as damages by the Collector vide order dated 17.8.1992.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to convey the order passed, to the petitioner forthwith.
It is further made clear that in case the petitioner had not vacated possession of the land in dispute, the order passed, referred to above, shall remain intact.
With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (G.S.Sandhawalia) Judge 1.8.2013 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.22 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document