Paramjeet Singh, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 06.03.2006 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Commissioner, whereby order dated 03.03.1999 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hansi, under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , as applicable in the State of Haryana, has been set aside and the appeal of the respondent-Gram Panchayat has been allowed declaring respondent - Gram Panchayat of Village Sisiabola, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, as owner of land measuring 32 kanals and also for quashing of order dated 29.05.2007 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby the revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) On 24.02.2010, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed the following order:- "Counsel for the petitioner submits that jamabandis Annexures P-1 and P-2 clearly record that the petitioner is in possession as a tenant on payment of ⅓rd batai. This fact alone entitles the petitioner to a declaration that he is a tenant of the Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that the findings recorded in proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as applicable to the State of Haryana, that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant, would not bind the authority exercising powers under Section 13-A of the Act, while considering a question of title with respect to or an interest, in panchayat land. It is further argued that the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner imposing a penalty upon the petitioner are without jurisdiction, as Section 13-A of the Act, does not contain any provision empowering them to assess such a penalty. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and find no reason to interfere, insofar as the rejection of petitioner's plea that he is a tenant of the Gram Panchayat. Apart from the entry in the jamabandi, which remains unsubstantiated for want of any lease deed, patta nama, Kabuliatnama, rent receipt or any evidence of payment of rent to the Gram Panchayat, a similar plea raised by the petitioner in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act was rejected and affirmed upto the High Court by holding that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant. The finding recorded in proceedings under Section 7 of the Act may not strictly operate as res judicata, but is a relevant circumstance while determining the rights of the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner has been held to be an unauthorized occupant. As a consequence, the petitioner's prayer to set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, insofar as they relate to the plea of tenancy is rejected. The second argument that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have no right to impose a penalty upon the petitioner in proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act, requires consideration in view of the absence of any such power in Section 13-A, of the Act. Notice of motion for 3.5.2010, limited to the aforementioned assertions. Notice re: stay as well."
(3.) In pursuance of the above mentioned order, respondents appeared and filed separate written statements.;