IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.3336 of 2010

Date of decision : 14.11.2011

Pyare Lal

… Petitioner

Versus

Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others.

…Respondents

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

Present:

Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana

for respondents No.1 to 4.

Mr.Amandeep Hooda, Advocate for respondent no.5.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated

06.03.2006 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Commissioner, whereby

order dated 03.03.1999 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Assistant

Collector First Grade, Hansi, under Section 13-A of the Punjab

Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

to as the Act) , as applicable in the State of Haryana, has been set

aside and the appeal of the respondent-Gram Panchayat has been

allowed declaring respondent – Gram Panchayat of Village

Sisiabola, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, as owner of land measuring

32 kanals and also for quashing of order dated 29.05.2007

(Annexure P/8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby

the revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed.

CWP No. 3336 of 2010

On 24.02.2010, after hearing the learned counsel for

the petitioner, this Court passed the following order:-

“Counsel for the petitioner submits that jamabandis

Annexures P-1 and P-2 clearly record that the petitioner is

in possession as a tenant on payment of 1/3^rd batai. This

fact alone entitles the petitioner to a declaration that he is

a tenant of the Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that

the findings recorded in proceedings under Section 7 of

the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), as applicable to the

State of Haryana, that the petitioner is an unauthorized

occupant, would not bind the authority exercising powers

under Section 13-A of the Act, while considering a

question of title with respect to or an interest, in

panchayat land. It is further argued that the orders

passed by the Commissioner and the Financial

Commissioner imposing a penalty upon the petitioner are

without jurisdiction, as Section 13-A of the Act, does not

contain any provision empowering them to assess such a

penalty.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the

orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial

Commissioner and find no reason to interfere, insofar as

the rejection of petitioner’s plea that he is a tenant of the

Gram Panchayat. Apart from the entry in the jamabandi,

which remains unsubstantiated for want of any lease

deed, patta nama, Kabuliatnama, rent receipt or any

evidence of payment of rent to the Gram Panchayat, a

similar plea raised by the petitioner in proceedings under

Section 7 of the Act was rejected and affirmed upto the

High Court by holding that the petitioner is an

unauthorized occupant.

The finding recorded in

proceedings under Section 7 of the Act may not strictly

operate as res judicata, but is a relevant circumstance

while determining the rights of the parties. Admittedly, the

2

CWP No. 3336 of 2010

petitioner has been held to be an unauthorized occupant.

As a consequence, the petitioner’s prayer to set aside the

orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial

Commissioner, insofar as they relate to the plea of

tenancy is rejected.

The second argument that the Commissioner and

the Financial Commissioner have no right to impose a

penalty upon the petitioner in proceedings under Section

13-A of the Act, requires consideration in view of the

absence of any such power in Section 13-A, of the Act.

Notice of motion for 3.5.2010, limited to the

aforementioned assertions.

Notice re: stay as well.”

In pursuance of the above mentioned order,

respo