The Collector is duty-bound to return possession of the land in dispute to the owners after the expiry of stipulated period of 20 years under the 1949 Act.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1371 and 2767 of 1989 as common question of law and facts is involved therein. For facility of reference, facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 1371 of 1989.

2. Gram Panchayat, Bohli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, filed an application against the writ petitioners/predecessors-in-interest Under Section 7 of the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act) for their ejectment from the land in dispute. The Special Collector, Kurukshetra, issued show-cause notice on the said application calling upon them to lead their defence, if any, showing why they should not be ejected from the land in their occupation. On receipt of notice, various occupants filed written statement and contested that application. Special Collector passed an order on 30.1.1981 holding that the lease period of 20 years having expired in Rabi 1979, the lease stood terminated and as a consequence thereof, the Tehsildar was directed to take possession of the lands in question from the lessees and hand it over to the Gram Panchayat, Bohli, because the real owner of the land in dispute was found to be Gram Panchayat. Having felt aggrieved of the order of Special Collector, persons affected filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, who vide order dated 26.8.1981 set aside the order passed by the Special Collector and remanded the case for fresh decision after properly looking into the records. After remand no fresh evidence was led either by the lessees or by the Gram Panchayat. Special Collector once again passed an order on 14.6.1986 directing that the Gram Panchayat be given possession of the land in dispute. The Special Collector in this order observed that the Government had taken the land from Gram Panchayat and as such, the Government must restore the same to it. The persons aggrieved filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, who once again vide order dated 11.3.1987 remanded the cases to the Collector on the ground that while deciding the cases the Collector had not given any finding in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Gram Panchayat having felt aggrieved of the order dated 11.3.1987 passed by the Commissioner, filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who disposed of all the revision petitions by common judgment dated 2.8.1988. The learned Financial Commissioner found that the land in dispute had been given on lease for 20 years under the 1949 Act and the Collector was duty-bound to return possession of the land in dispute to the owners after the expiry of stipulated period of 20 years. The order of the Financial Commissioner is being impugned in these writ petitions.

3. Mr. R.S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the petitioners, has contended that lease-deeds on the basis of which land was given to the petitioners on lease have not been produced on record and in absence thereof, the finding of the Financial Commissioner that the land was given on lease to the petitioners under the 1949 Act is without any basis. He contended that the land was allotted to the petitioners as it was lying vacant and the petitioners have made it cultivable and therefore, they cannot be ordered to be ejected on the basis of orders passed under the 1949 Act.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitions. If the claim of petitioners is that the land had been allotted under any other Act and was not on lease under the 1949 Act, then surely some letters of allotment must have been produced in support of allotment. None having been produced, in my opinion the contention that the land was not leased out to the petitioners under the 1949 Act is not acceptable. From a reading of para 3 of order dated 26.8.1981 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala division, Ambala, shows that counsel for the petitioners had fair