GUGAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are as follows. The Gram Panchayat, Malakpur, Tehsil Kaithal, through their Sarpanch leased out several parcels of land vested in it in favour of the seven petitioners and others on 14th November, 1963, by a resolution of the same date. The lessees were put in possession of the land leased out to them. The Collector, Kaithal, respondent No. 3 by his order dated the 28th March, 1966, in pursuance of his powers under section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , hereinafter referred to as the Act cancelled the leases granted in favour of the petitioners and declined to award them any compensation for determining the lease before time, copy annexure 'A'. The petitioners' appeal against the above order was dismissed by the Commissioner, respondent No. 2 on 14th February, 1967, Annexure 'B'. They alleged that the orders annexures 'A' and 'B' were illegal and beyond the competence of the Collector and the Commissioner and so need be quashed inter alia on the grounds as under :-

(2.) Sher Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Malakpur, Khesa, Choota, Ran Singh and Chandu, respondent Nos. 5 to 9, all residents of village Malakpur in their written statement pleaded that Dayal Singh, Ajmer Singh, Midda and Bharat Singh petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 and 7 have surrendered their possession voluntarily to the village Panchayat and as such they ceased to have any interest in the impugned leases. As regards Gugan and Lilla it was given out that they were undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment each and on that account were also not interested in the impugned leases. Teja Singh is said to have sublet the land. They admitted the grant of the leases of the land vested in the Panchayat in favour of the petitioners as alleged by them but added that the leases were granted in contravention of the provisions made in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Rules which were in force at the time and so the Collector in exercise of his powers under section 10-A of the Act was fully competent to terminate the same.

(3.) A careful reading of this section will show that the Collector was competent to examine the legality of the leases of the village common lands granted by the Village Panchayat to strangers even before this provision was incorporated in the Act. Therefore, the petitioners were not justified in contending as they did that section 10-A did not apply to their leases which came into existence in the year 1963. It was also not correct to say that no rules had been framed under the Act by the time the impugned leases were granted in favour of the petitioners. The rules were very much in existence and rules 4 and 6 which govern the conditions regarding the grant of leases for ready reference are given hereinunder -