IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11288 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 18, 2011 Arjun .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Rajesh Kumar Moudgil, Advocate, for Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Vide Order dated 19.7.2007 (Annexure P-6), application filed by Gram Panchayat (respondent No.2) under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana ) was allowed. Petitioner has been held to be in unauthorised possession of gram panchayat land. After CWP No.11288 of 2009 [2] hearing the parties on the quantum of penalty, to be imposed, penalty was imposed. Petitioner carried an appeal that was dismissed by Collector vide Order dated 3.7.2007 (Annexure P-5) because penalty had not been deposited. 2. Petitioner approached the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. Vide Order dated 3.10.2007 (Annexure P-4), Commissioner remanded the matter to Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, for re-adjudication. Vide Order dated 5.12.2007 (Annexure P-3), Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Guhla, directed imposition of penalty at the rate of ` 10,000/- per hectare per year since the time petitioner was in unauthorised possession. 3. Petitioner approached Collector, Kaithal. Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 8.7.2008 (Annexure P-2). Vide order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-1), even the Commissioner has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner in challenge to orders passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and Collector. Commissioner, in order Annexure P-1, has held that the gram panchayat has incurred financial loss due to unauthorised possession of the petitioner. 4. Although the case has been remanded to Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, after passing of order Annexure P-6, by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, notice of the contention in that order can be taken to the effect that learned counsel for the petitioner himself admitted that in the village, the prevailing rate of CWP No.11288 of 2009 [3] lease of 1 hectare was ` 15,000/- per year. Judicial notice of the fact can be taken that the lease rate in District Kaithal has not been less than ` 20,000/- per acre per year. This Court finds that the penalty imposed is not as per the prevailing rate rather is on the lower side. Quantum of penalty is required to be considered by the officials working at the district level. The exercise having been conducted and penalty determined, in judicial review in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, quantum of penalty cannot be reduced unless the order is found to be without jurisdiction or perverse in nature. No ground for interference in impugned orders is made out in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 5. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 18, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?