H.R. Sodhi, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition which is directed against the order dated 7th February, 1968, appended as Annexure 'B' with the writ petition, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, whereby he directed the ejectment of the Petitioners, the validity of Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), and Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the Rules), has been challenged.
(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. On the coming into force of the Act, common land in the area of village Kotra, Tahsil Kaithal, District Karnal, vested in the Gram Panchayat of that village and it leased out land measuring 7 Kanals 12 Marias comprised in Rectangle No. 58, Killa No. 16, to the Petitioner No. 2 for a period of ten years ending in Kharif 1965. The lease was not extended by the Panchayat after the expiry of the said period and an application was made to the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Kaithal, praying for the ejectment of the Petitioners who were formerly lessees for a fixed period. This application was made under Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 19. The case of the Panchayat was that the occupation of the land by the Petitioners was unauthorised since the period for which the lease was granted had expired and they had not surrendered the possession. The Assistant Collector, after following the summary procedure prescribed under rules 20 and 21, ordered the ejectment of the Petitioners on 31st August, 1967, holding that they were in unauthorised occupation. The defence of the Petitioners was that they were lessees of the land in dispute and had been occupying the same on payment of rent which, according to them, was being paid regularly. Since the lease had not been renewed, a mutation was also effected in favour of the Gram Panchayat on the expiry of the period of the lease. The Assistant Collector, as already stated, held that the Petitioners had no locus standi to remain in possession of the area leased out to them after the expiry of the period of the lease, and that their possession being unauthorised, they were liable to be ejected. Three separate appeals were filed by the Petitioners before the Collector, Karnal, who rejected the same on 14th March, 1967. Further appeals were taken to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, but with no success. The Commissioner dismissed them by one consolidated order passed on 7th February, 1968. The contention of the Petitioners there was that they would still be deemed to be in the position of 'tenant holding over' and they could be ejected only in accordance with the procedure contemplated by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It was also argued there that the Petitioners were Harijans and that they had a preferential right to be given on lease the Panchayat land. The learned Commissioner did not accept the contentions of the Petitioners and upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. The Petitioners have thus come up in a writ petition before this Court.
(3.) THE mam contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that Section 7 and rules 20 and 21 under which ejectment has been ordered are ultra vires inasmuch as Section 7 gives wide, arbitrary, uncontrolled and unbridled powers to an Assistant Collector to eject a lessee and that rules 20 and 21 which are couched almost in the same language as Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, are capable of abuse by leaving it to the Assistant Collector to arbitrarily choose persons in possession in the matter of ejectment without there being any guiding principles on which he could act. These provisions are consequently urged to be offending and violative of the right of equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance in this connection has been placed on a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported as Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1581.;