The court clarified that the earlier judgments did not preclude the Gram Panchayat from initiating fresh proceedings for eviction in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for the authorities to decide ejectment petitions based on evidence and material produced before them.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. The petitioners by way of the present petition seek quashing of the order dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure-P.8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra (respondent No. 1).

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are descendants and successors-in-interest of the original allottees of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Karah, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. The names of predecessors-in-interest, it is submitted, are as per Jamabandi for the year 1956-57. The ancestors and predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were settled in Village Karah from their village in Amritsar District. This was done in implementation of the Government of India policy of "Grow More Food Campaign". It is submitted that vast areas of shamlat lands were under wild forests on account of untamed waters of rivers Tangri and Markanda which used to stagnate in the land for months. Village Karah also had vast shamlat lands on which flood water of seasonal rivers/rivulets, namely, Tangri and Markanda stagnated for months on end. The shamlat land was not cultivated by any proprietor/proprietors of the village because it was barren; besides, it was infested with wild boars, herds of `Neel Gais (Nilgai), monkeys and poisonous snakes and other reptiles. The ancestors/predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners made the land cultivable and also constructed residential houses. The petitioners/their predecessors-in-interest paid an amount of Rs. 5 per acre per annum in the account of the Panchayat which was maintained with the Cooperative Bank, Cheeka, District Kurukshetra in terms of the lease. However, the Gram Panchayat and the original proprietors of the village became greedy and asked the petitioners to vacate the lands which had been made cultivable by continuous efforts of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest. The Gram Panchayat started refusing to accept the deposit of rent and grant any receipt for the same. On 2.11.1977, the Gram Panchayat, Karah filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , (as applicable in the State of Haryana) (`Act - for short) seeking eviction of the petitioners from various parcels of land under their possession. The said applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal in terms of similar orders dated 30.1.1979. The petitioners filed separate appeals against the said orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade. These were dismissed in terms of similar orders dated 8.5.1979 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra. Copies of the said orders, it is alleged, were not supplied to the petitioners despite applications for grant of copies made in this regard. The petitioners, therefore, filed writ petitions in this Court (i.e. CWP Nos. 1707 to 1731 of 1979 and CWP No. 2165 of 1979) assailing the non-speaking orders passed by the Collector and Assistant Collector, Kurukshetra. The said petitions were decided by this Court vide order dated 14.11.1979 (Annexure-P.2) passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v. Collector, Kurukshetra District (CWP No. 1707 of 1979). The orders that were impugned in the said writ petition were quashed. However, it was held that the quashing of the order would not preclude the Gram Panchayat from initiating any fresh proceedings for the eviction of the petitioners in accordance with law. It is alleged that another attempt was made in the year 1981 by the Gram Panchayat, Karah to seek ejectment of the petitioners in terms of Section 7 (2) of the Act. It is submitted that the authorities under the Act accepted the application of the Gram Panchayat holding that there was a 20 years lease in terms of which the petitioners had been given possession of the land and on the expiry of the same their possession had become unauthorized rendering them liable for eviction. The orders that were passed were challenged by the petitioners in this Court