The finality of an ejectment order precludes challenging its validity during implementation, and there is no limitation for implementing an ejectment order under Section 7 of the Act.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Khillan, the petitioner, has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.7,2002 (Annexure P-7), passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hodal, as well as the order dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, confirming the said order, vide which the application of the Gram Panchayat for delivery of possession of the land in question, from which the petitioner was ordered to be ejected vide order dated 7.6.1990 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Palwal (Annexure P-3), has been allowed. The petitioner has also challenged the initial order of ejectment dated 7.6.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade in the present petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1990, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of the land in question by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Palwal, vide its order dated 7.6.1990 (Annexure P-3) on an application filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, under Section 7 of the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and he was ordered to be ejected from the said land. Against that order, no appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same became final. Thereafter, in the year 1998, the Social Education & Panchayat Officer, Hodel, respondent No. 1 herein, filed application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hodel for implementation of the order dated 7.6,1990 and for putting the Gram Panchayat in possession of the land in question, from which the petitioner was ordered to be ejected. The said application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the application filed by respondent No. 1 is not maintainable being barred by limitation as the application for execution of the order dated 7.6.1990 could have been filed within a period of three years. The said contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure P-7) while holding that no limitation is prescribed for restoration of the possession to the Gram Panchayat in compliance of the order passed under Section 7 of the Act. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure P-9).

3. Before us, Shri Amrit Lal Jain, counsel for the petitioner, raised two contentions. Firstly that the ejectment order dated 7.6.1990 is void order as had been passed without jurisdiction and the same is a nullity, therefore, it cannot be executed by the authorities under the Act. He submitted that the land in question does not fall under the definition of Shamilat Deh as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act and the Assistant Collector did not record any such finding in his order dated 7.6.1990. Without recording such finding, he has no jurisdiction to pass an order of ejectment. Therefore, the ejectment order dated 7.6.1990 is a nullity being an order without jurisdiction and the same cannot be implemented by way of execution. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at all. Once the order of ejectment dated 7.6.1990 has become final between the parties and no appeal against the same was filed, though the same could have been filed under Section 13-B of the Act within 30 days from the date of passing of the order, the authorities while implementing the aforesaid order of ejectment, cannot go behind the order and see whether the order was passed legally or not. When the ejectment order has become final, the petitioner cannot question the validity of the said order at the time of its implementation. Thus, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, then, raised the second contention that the ejectment order dated 7.6.19