M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Article 226 is to the order dated 3.2.1988, passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, holding that the petitioner had become unauthorized occupant of the land after the expiry of the lease period and as such, he was not entitled to continue with the possession of the land. The aforementioned finding has been recorded on the basis of the admission made by the petitioner in his cross- examination conducted on him in the proceedings before the Collector, initiated under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short - "the Act"). It has further been noticed by the Commissioner that according to the revenue record (Jamabandi 1983-84, Ex. P2), the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land and after expiry of the lease period of 1983-1984, the petitioner has become unauthorized occupant. The Commissioner, however, has refused to affirm the finding of the Collector on the issue of recovery of an amount of Rs. 26,000/- from the petitioner as no notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued by the Collector to him.
(2.) WHEN the instant petition came up for consideration before this Court, a conditional order of stay was issued in favour of the petitioner on 22.3.1988, which reads as under :- "Notice of motion for 20th April, 1988. If the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the Court of Collector, Muktsar, District Faridkot, on or before 1st April, 1988, then his dispossession from the land in dispute shall stand stayed till further orders. Dasti." On 3.10.1988, the petition was admitted with a direction by the Division Bench that the interim order was to continue with liberty to the respondents to move an application for vacation of the stay order before the learned Single Judge. The application filed by the respondent-Gram Panchayat for vacation of stay order was dismissed and it was directed that the order dated 22.3.1988 was to continue, subject to the condition that, the writ petitioner was to continue depositing Rs. 20,000/- per year, in advance and payment was to commence from 1.4.1989. The balance amount for the period from 1.4.1988 to April 1989 was required to be deposited within a period of 2 months from the date of the order. It was further clarified that in case, the condition was not complied with, the stay order had to be considered as vacated. Accordingly, the petitioner is stated to have been paying the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 1, in compliance with the directions issued on 12.11.1988.
(3.) MR . Vikas Behl, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the notice (Annexure P-1) issued by the Collector under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act itself suffers from two legal infirmities. According to the Learned counsel, the Collector has failed to specify the grounds of unauthorized possession and the notice is short of statutory period of 10 days as specified under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Dr. Yash Paul v. S.S. Anand, AIR 1980 Jammu and Kashmir 16 and argued that mere mentioning of possession as unauthorized does not constitute disclosure of the grounds as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the orders (Annexure P-2 and P-4) are liable to be set aside.;