JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

One Vakil son of Lal Chand, resident of Village Pasawal, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal instituted a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (As applicable to Haryana) (for short hereinafter call 'the Act of 1961'). The said petition became assigned case No. 247/50010/06.03.2020. In the petition (supra), the petitioner (supra) claimed relief, that respondent No. 1 therein, the petitioner herein, being ordered to be evicted from the petition lands. The said order of eviction was claimed, on the premise, that the respondent No. 1 therein, had made encroachments upon land owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat concerned.

2. In pursuance to the institution of the above petition, the statutory notice was issued to one Karambir. However, the notice (supra), as became issued in terms of Rule 20 (2) (b) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 was uncontestedly issued but without permitting the noticee to avail ten days since the issuance of the said notice to him and or, the noticee was asked to cause appearance before the Collector concerned, before ten days elapsing since the issuing of the notice, upon him.

3. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, one Karambir who became arrayed as co-respondent No. 1 in the case (supra), has made a submission before this Court, that the resultant effect, of breach of the above statutory provision appertaining, to the above period of time being granted to the noticee, hence computable from the date of issuance thereof, has further resulted in the ill consequence qua the subsequent thereto drawn proceedings, also becoming completely vitiated. Therefore, the naunce of the above submission, is that, the proceedings drawn against the petitioner herein be ordered to be quashed.

4. The above made argument before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted. The reason for forming the above inference does but naturally ensue, from the fact that the statutory notice, did become validly served upon the petitioner herein. Even if the said notice, did from the date of its issuance omit to accord to the noticee, a period of ten days therefrom, hence for his making his personal appearance or his appearing through his counsel, before the learned Collector concerned, yet the said provisions, as occur in Rule 20 (2) (b) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rules whereof became extracted hereinafter, are not cast in a mandatory phraseology.

"20. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.

Xxxxxxxxxx

(2) The notice shall --

(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and

(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in the land in shamlat deh, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof.

(3) xxxx

(4) xxxx

5. The result of the said provisions being not cast in a mandatory phraseology, does but make room for this Court, to conclude that the said provisions are merely directory in nature and also spark an inference that they are only for facilitating the noticee, to on the date specified in the notice, make(s) his appearance either personally or through an authorized counsel before the Collector concerned. Naturally also on the first appearance as made either personally or through validly engaged counsel by the noticee, before the collector concerned, there was no imperative ne