A.D. Koshal, J. - (1.) THE Gram Panchayat, Sarai Khuaja, in Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon (Respondent No. 3 and hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat) owns shamilat deh lands which include a stony area. In its meeting held on the 21st of March, 1971, the Panchayat passed a resolution (Annexure "A" to the petition), the operative part of which is reproduced below for facility of reference: The Panchayat has received the offers from the following persons concerned as per its resolution passed on 25th February, 1971: 1. Shri Nand Lal, son of Harish Chand, owner of Maha Laxmi Crusher, Gurukul, Sarai Khuaja.
(2.) SHRI Bharat Singh and Company Shri Prem Kumar Sahni, 10 Lady Hardinge Road, New Delhi.
(3.) RAM Sarup, 5, South Extension, New Delhi. This Panchayat is now fully in a position to transfer its rights in its ghair mumkin pahar in village Lakarpur for a period of five years to the person making the highest offer, for which period of 5 years, it had asked for the offers and the above -mentioned persons had made such offers. These rights are being granted under the provisions of Rule No. 61 of the Panchayat Mining Concessional Rules, 1964, that is to say, that the Panchayat is legally empowered to charge the proper compensation for giving such rights. This arrangement is being made because on account of some difficulties and complications, there was an apprehension that instead of usual monetary benefit obtained earlier, there might be loss to the Panchayat. Thus, the Panchayat transfers to the person giving the highest offer, the right to collect compensation and rent from an authorised occupant for a period of five years. Because the last highest offer is of Shri Bharat Singh and Company for Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) per year, which is the highest as compared to the offers given by other persons, it is unanimously resolved to give its rights in the ghair mumkin pahar shamilat deh in village Lakarpur, and its compensation is fixed at Rs. 15,000 per year, i.e., Rs. 75,000 for five years, as per Rule No. 61, and the payment of the settled amount of compensation would be made in following manner and besides this, the resolution, dated 25th February, 1971, may be read along with this resolution. The details of the manner of paying compensation are that the compensation shall be paid in advance in the month of April, every year, 1/4th of the compensation for this year is being collected today on the spot and the remaining 3/4th has been agreed to be paid by 28th March, 1971. However, an additional condition applicable to the firm Bharat Singh and Company, 151 Sarai Julena, New Delhi -25 will be that they will have no right to cause any damage to the trees and bajri that exists on this pahar and the cattle of the villages will be grazing as heretofore, and there will be no obstruction. The period of this agreement will be from 21st March, 1971 to 20th March, 1976 and during this term both the parties will be bound by the conditions set out above and no party will have the right to interfere with this agreement. 2. This resolution (hereinafter referred to as the resolution) and the one, dated the 25th of February, 1971, mentioned in its opening sentence, were suspended under Section 97 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter called the Panchayat Act) and the lease or agreement as may have been agreed upon the Gram Panchayat with Shri Bharat Singh was cancelled under the provisions of Section 10 -A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Lands Act) by an order, dated the 23rd of July, 1971 (Annexure "E" to the petition) passed by the "Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon". This order is challenged by Bharat Singh and Company (mentioned in the above extracted resolution and hereinafter called the Company) in the petition before me under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on numerous grounds of which only the following need be set down as they are sufficient for the disposal of the petition: (a) The order in so far as it has been made under Section 97 of the Panchayat Act is without jurisdiction and illegal inasmuch as it was passed without obtaining any explanation of the Panchayat and also without hearing the Company. (b) In so far as it has been passed under Section 10 -A of the Lands Act, it contravenes the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it was passed without affording the Company any opportunity of being heard. 3. I shall first consider ground (b). It is admitted on all hands that before the impugned order was passed, no opportunity of being heard was granted to the Company and this circumstance strikes at the very root of the impugned order. Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 10 -A of the Lands Act may be reproduced with advantage: 10 -A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the shamilat law or in any other law for the time being in force, the Collector may call for, from the Panchayat in his District, the record of any lease, contract or agreement entered into by any Panchayat in respect of any land vested or deemed to be vested in it, whether such lease, contract or agreement is entered into before or after the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1964 and examine such record for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such lease, contract or agreement. 2. Where, on examination of the record under Sub -section (1) and after making such inquiry, if any, as he may deem fit, the Collector is satisfied that such lease, contract or agreement: (i) has been entered into, in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (ii) has been entered into as a result of fraud or concealment of facts; or (iii) is detrimental to the interests of the Panchayat as prescribed; the Collector may, notwithstanding anything as aforesaid, cancel the lease, contract or agreement or vary the terms thereof, unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he may think proper: Provided that no order under this sub -section shall be passed by the Collector without affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the lease, contract or agreement. 4. The proviso to Sub -section (2) specifically raises a bar against the Collector passing an order under the sub -section without affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned; so that if such opportunity is not afforded by the Collector, an order passed by him under Sub -section (2) would be illegal and in fact without jurisdiction If the resolution embodies a lease, contract, or agreement entered into by the Panchayat in respect of any land vested or deemed to be vested in it, the provisions of Sub -sections (1) and (2) are at once attracted thereto and the impugned order is vitiated as it attracts the bar enacted by the proviso. In so far as the order has been made under Section 10 -A of the Lands Act, therefore, it must be quashed as being without jurisdiction, provided the resolution fulfils the requirement just above mentioned.;