CWP No. 6103 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6103 of 2006 Date of decision: 24.9.2007 Sajjan Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. MADAN Present: Mr. HN Mehtani, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. K.S.GAREWAL, J. Sajjan Singh and another have filed this petition seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the auction of two parcels of land of 36 kanals 8 marla and 24 kanals by Gram Panchayat Putthi Saman. According to the petitioners, they are both tenants on the land and are in lawful possession thereof. They cannot be dispossessed other than in due course of law. Briefly stated, the facts are that about 86 acres of land of the village, belonging to the Gram Panchayat, had been under cultivating possession of some of the residents of the village as non occupancy tenants on batai tehai. Some part of the land has been described as gairmumkin CWP No. 6103 of 2006 2 shamlat bhumi. Out of this the petitioners were in possession of the two aforementioned parcels of land as gairmarusi tenants on batai tehai. The petitioners contend that there is acute factionalism in the village and the Sarpanch wants to take revenge against the petitioners as they had opposed him in the election. The panchayat decided to auction the land on which the petitioners were in possession, with the sole purpose of dispossessing them. Proclamation was issued for auction to be held on April 18, 2006 which led the petitioners to file this petition on April 20, 2006. The petitioners had tried to convince the panchayat through notice dated April 15, 2006 sent through their counsel that holding of auction was illegal but to no avail. The petitioners claim that they had been cultivating the land in dispute and their possession is legal. Notice of motion was issued and the Gram Panchayat, Putthi Saman as well as Ajmer Singh (respondents 6 and 7) appeared and filed their reply. It was pleaded by the aforesaid respondents that Ram Kishan (petitioner 2) had filed a civil suit which was later withdrawn by him on August 8, 2006., The said civil suit had been filed before the filing of the present petition. This fact had not been disclosed at the time of filing of the petition. The petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was also pleaded that the petitioner 1 had started cultivating the land in 2002, in connivance with the then Sarpanch. When the present panchayat took over, it was decided that the land should be auctioned. Petitioner 2 filed a civil suit which prevented the land from being auctioned. Except the two petitioners and one Phool Kanwar, nobody else was cultivating the land. The right to auction the land was re-asserted by the respondents. CWP No. 6103 of 2006 3 During the course of arguments, the respondents argued that the petitioners had the right to challenge the auction by filing an application/representation under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and they have not done so. Therefore, not having availed the legal remedy available to them the petitioners would not be entitled to maintain this petition. Under Section 10-A of Act, the Collector has the power to call for the record of any lease, contract or agreement entered into by the Panchayat in respect of any land vested in the panchayat. The Collector after calling for the record has to examine it for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such lease, contract or agreement. After examination of the record, if the Collector satisfies himself that such lease, contract or agreement has been entered into in violation of any of the provisions of the Act or there has been fraud or concealment of facts or is detrimental to the interest of the Panchayat, the Collector shall have the authority to cancel the lease, contract or agreement. In the present case, the petitioners can always challenge the auction by seeking intervention of the Collector under the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act. The Collector may take action after examining the record and set aside the auction if he is satisfied that any of the conditions, spelt out in Section 10-A of the Act have been violated. This legal remedy is available to the petitioners but it is for the petitioners to enforce the remedy but this cannot be done through this petition. The petitioners may approach the Collector under Section 10-A of the Act. CWP No. 6103 of 2006 4 We find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 24.9.2007 (R.S. MADAN) prem JUDGE