A lessee whose lease has expired and is in possession can be ejected from the land under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964.

HARPHUL SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Full Bench was constituted by the Hon ble Chief Justice on a reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as according to the learned Judge, the decision recorded in C.W.P. No. 17276 of 1991 Om Parkash V/s. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul does not appear to be laying down correct law; as according to the learned Single Judge the observations made in a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Jaimal V/s. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, 1969 Punj LJ 378, are in direct conflict with the judgment in Om Parkashs case (supra).

2. In our view it shall be advisable to reproduce the reference made by the learned Judge which reads as under :-

"Petitioners Roshan Lal and others through present writ filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector Karnal vide which they have been evicted from the land in dispute under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.One of the points raised in the writ petition is that a lessee whose lease period has already expired and who is in possession, can be ejected from the land in accordance with law i.e. either by filing a suit or under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. For the aforestated stand, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 17276 of 1991 Om Parkash V/s. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul, decided on April 1, 1992. I was one of the members of the Bench in the Civil Writ Petition aforesaid. While dealing with the matter aforesaid, the Court held "present is a case of a lessee whose lease has already expired and is in possession. He can be ejected from the land in accordance with law either by filing a suit or under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. The observations made above are in direct conflict with a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jaimal V/s. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, 1969 Pun LJ 378. While deciding Jaimals case (supra), the Court took into consideration Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. Rule 19 which defines unauthorised occupation of Shamlat Deh reads thus :-

"19. Unauthorised occupation of Shamlat Deh - For purposes of Section 7 of the Act, a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any land in Shamlat Deh -

(a) Where he has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, entered into possession thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant by the Panchayat; or

(b) Where he being an allottee, lessee or grantee, has, by reason of the determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant in accordance with the terms in that behalf, therein contained, ceased whether before or after the commencement of the Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such land in Shamlat Deh; or

(c) Where any person authorised to occupy any land in Shamlat Deh has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act-(1) sub-let in contravention of the terms of allotment, lease or grant, without the permission of the Panchayat or of any other authority competent to permit such sub-letting the whole or any part of such land in Shamlat Deh; or

(ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such land in Shamlat Deh.Explanation - For purposes of clause

(a), a person shall not merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent be deemed to have entered into possession as allottee, lessee or grantee."

The vires of Rule 19 were also upheld in Jaimals case (1969 Pun LJ 378) (supra). In a recent decision recorded in The Gram Panchayat of Village Bhagal V/s. Bachna, 1987 Pun LJ 656, the Supreme Court has held that upon expiry of term of tenancy, the p