Ranjit Singh, J.
1. Bachan Singh and others, petitioners, have filed this petition to challenge the orders dated 26.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) and dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P-l) whereby the application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Rule 20-A of Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Rules, 1964, (far short, 'the Rules'), imposing the damage of Rs. 7,20,000/- are challenged.
2. Gram Panchayat, respondent, filed an application under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 197S for eviction of Nand Singh, father of the petitioners. The District Development and Panchayat Officer, Amritsar, ordered the ejectment of father of the petitioners on 25.3.1983. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Joint Development Commissioner on 28.2.1985. While dismissing the appeal, liberty was granted to the Panchayat to claim damages for unauthorized occupation by the father of the petitioners.
3. Grievance of the petitioners is that Panchayat kept silent for over 20 years and did not execute the order during the life time of Nand Singh, father of the petitioners, and ultimately have dispossessed the petitioners on 17.7.2005.'Having done so, the Gram Panchayat has now filed an application under Rule 20-A of the Rules and damage to the tune of Rs. 7,20,000/-, being 20 times of the amount, assessed as Rs. 12,000/- per year for three years. The petitioners claim that this sum is exorbitant and unreasonable as such, have filed this writ petition The petitioners would also mildly raise a challenge to the action of the Gram Panchayat in filing an application under Rule 20-A of the Rules, which according to them; would not be applicable. The appeal filed by the petitioners, however, has been dismissed and that is how they have filed the present writ petition.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. The petitioners have been in occupation of 52 Kanals 5 marlas of the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. This land was taken on lease by father of the petitioners and the period of lease expired on 4.4.1975. The father of he petitioners however, did not vacate this land and the lease in his favour was not extended. It is n this back-ground that order of his ejectment was made on 25.3.1983. Despite that the possession of the lend was not handed over to the Gram Pancahyat, which ultimately was claimed in execution after police help on 14.7.2005.The Gram Panchayat, thus, would point out that the petitioners had remained in possession of this disputed land for over a period of 30 years and have enjoyed the fruit without paying any lease money or otherwise compensating or paying damages to the Gram Panchayat To respond to the contention that provisions of Rule 20-A would not be applicable, it is pointed out that no such plea was taken before the authorities which passed the impugned order and as such, the petitioners can not be permitted to raise this plea for the first! time before the writ Court.
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 can not be permitted to raise this plea for the first 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 unauthorized 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 Rs. 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 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.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.