Judgment

BEG, J. :- There is a batch of five Civil Appeals by Special leave and another of eight Writ Petitions by Ex-Servicemen Co-operative (Tenants) Farming Societies before us raising common questions of act and law so that they can be disposed of by a single Judgement.

2. The Civil Appeals are filed against the orders of the Collector, Kaithal, dated 25-4-1972, directing that an area of 230 acres of land assumed to have been leased to the members of the appellant Societies under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), in 1952, for 20 years, should be handed over to the rightful owners by the Pattedars as the period of their leases has expired. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution against the orders of the Collector is not substantiated by citing any authority of this Court. Moreover, there are also Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution questioning the power of the Collector to deprive the petitioners of their alleged fundamental right to hold land in their possession until dispossessed in accordance with law. We, therefore, overrule this technical objection.

3. Apparently, the Collector s orders were made on the assumption that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had already decided that Pattas were given to the members of the tenants Societies under the Act and that the ownership of certain persons over the lands leased to the members of the appellant Societies was established and was subsisting at the time of the order. We have not been shown any judgment of any Court where these questions have been canvassed and determined. All that the learned Counsel for the Respondent State could submit is that from certain statements made on behalf of Co-operative Societies, it should be inferred that Pattas were given in 1952 under the Act to the members of these Societies because they expired 20 years afterwards in 1972 which was the maximum period for which leases could be granted under Section 5 of the Act. It may be that the members of the Co-operative Societies had made some admissions the nature and effect of which require examination. It is well settled that the effect of an alleged admission depends upon the circumstances in which it was made. We are unable to go into these questions until they have been fully and properly investigated by an authority empowered to consider them.

4. It appears that no leases were produced by anybody before the Collector or anywhere else. This distinguishes the present case from the case of Dasaudha Singh v. State of Haryana and Haryana Co-op. Multipurpose Society v. Collector of Kaithal, AIR 1973 SC 710, relied upon on behalf of the Respondent State, where there was no disputed question about the enactment under which the admitted leases were given. The peculiar feature of each case before us, whether under appeal or on a Writ Petition, is that there is no Patta or lease forthcoming. It is denied by the appellants and by the petitioners in each case that either the land was given to them under the East Punjab Land Utilization Act or that the alleged to be handed over have any right or title left at all even if they had any at any time.

5. Moreover, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana showing that a good deal of land in dispute vests in the Gram Sabhas or Panchayats. If this is so, it is difficult for us to understand how an order could be made for the handing over of the possession of this land to the assumed private owners who are named in the order.

6. After having been taken through the provisions of the Act, we find that the provisions of eviction could only apply to cases where it is clear or there is no dispute that the person to be evicted was a lessee under Section 5 of the Act. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the alleged lessees point out that were a number of enactments under which the land could be given. They were said to