- (1.) While disposing of Civil Appeal Nos. 1285-1289 of 1972, in the matter of M/s. Prem Ex-servicemen Co-op. Tenant Farming Society Ltd. V. State of Haryana and others and Writ Petition Nos. 829-83/73 and 232-233 and 237/72, Kamalpur Gitapur Ex-servicemen Co-op. Farming Society Ltd. V. State of Haryana and others,1974 PunLJ 272, the Supreme Court of India, allowed the appeals and the writ petitions and quashed the orders of the Collector, Kaithal, directing dispossession of the appellants and the petitioners from the land occupied by them, and ordered that no further proceedings under the Act be taken against the alleged lessees so long as it is not decided that the lands in their possession, are still governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was further directed by the Supreme Court, that the Collector may himself go into the following questions before passing any further orders :- 1. Was the possession of any of the lands in dispute taken by the State Government under the Utilization of Lands Act and Patas duly executed under Section 5 of the Act in favour of the alleged lessees ? 2. Were any proceedings for awarding compensation under Section 4 of the Act taken in respect of the land alleged to have been leased and, if so, on what basis were the persons dispossessed compensated ? In other words, are there grounds to believe that the persons to whom the lands were directed to be handed over were no longer owners ? 3. If no legally valid leases were executed in favour of the alleged lessees, what could be their legal status and rights by reason of long possession ? 4. What was the nature of the claims to any land put forward by the Gaon Panchayats ? 5. Is this a case in which the Collector can interfere or pass any order under any provisions of the law or should the matter be left to be decided between the alleged lessees, the alleged private owners, and the Panchayats by such other legal proceedings as may be open to them for the purpose of getting their claims adjudicated upon ?
(2.) Consequently the Collector, Kaithal, issued notices dated 25.5.1974 to the petitioners under Section 7 of the Act, calling upon them to appear before him. The petitioners filed contempt petition against the Collector in the Supreme Court of India and upon receipt of notice of those proceedings, the Collector withdrew the impugned notices. Thereafter the Collector issued another notice on 5.7.1974 omitting the mention of Section 7 of the Act, to the petitioners who were the lease-holders and to the landowners including the members of the Gram Panchayat, directing them to appear before him personally or through an Advocate on 26.7.1974 for furnishing evidence, documents or any other material and submissions in support of their contentions and proof in relation to and having bearing on the aforesaid questions. It was also stated in the notice that in the event of their non-appearance it would be understood that they had no submissions to make nor wish to furnish any evidence and that ex parte proceedings would be taken and consequential orders passed. The petitioners-leaseholders appeared before the Collector and raised objection of jurisdiction in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but the Collector rejected their objection finding no substance in the same and proceeded with the case. In answer to question No. 1, the Collector held that possession of the land in dispute was taken by the Collector under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, from the landowners and that although no Patas are executed under Section 5 of the Act yet the lands were leased out to the lessees under the provisions of the said Act and not any other Act. Under question No. 2, he held that no compensation was paid under the Act to the landowners and there is no ground to believe that the persons to whom the lands were directed to be handed over were no longer owners. Under question No. 3 the Collector held that the status and right of lease-holders are that of tenants as defined in the Act who are liable for eviction after a maximum period of 20 years as provided under the Act on the expiry of the said period. Question No. 4 was answered as under :- "I am of the opinion that the case regarding Gram Panchayat land is similar to those of the other landowners and the Gram Panchayat is entitled to claim possession of its lands leased out for 20 years, after the expiry of the lease." In reply to question No. 5, the Collector held that a Collector is statutorily bound under Section 7 of the Act to deliver possession of the lands to the landowners after the expiry of the lease and thus enabling him to discharge his liabilities under the Act and that nothing was left in the matter between the alleged lessees, alleged private landowners and the Gram Panchayat for adjudication of any claim.
(3.) The Collector finally held that the leaseholders were liable to eviction forthwith under the Act, since their lease period had already expired and the landowners were entitled to possession of the land. He accordingly directed Tehsildar, Guhla, to take possession of 1755 kanals 18 marlas of land of V. Bakhli under the Prem Ex-servicemen Co-op. Tenants Farming Society Ltd., Bakhli, of 1324 kanals-15 marlas of land under the Tanda Ex-servicemen Co-op. Tenants Farming Society, Bakhli, of 1160 kanals- 18 marlas under the Guru Nanak Ex-servicemen Co-op. Tenants Farming Society Ltd., Bakhli, of 756 kanals - 4 marlas of land under the Bakhli Ex.servicemen Co-op. Tenants Farming Society Ltd., Bakhli and of 984 kanals - 18 marlas of land under the Bakhli Doaba Ex.servicemen Co-op. Tenants Farming Society Ltd., Bakhli, on his behalf and to give its possession to the landowners as per list attached as Annexures A, B, C, D and E. The Collector further ordered that since the harvesting of kharif crop is almost over, the leaseholders were directed to remove any structures or machinery from the lands immediately, and that they were not entitled to any compensation under the Act after the expiry of the lease.;