Civil Writ Petition No. 19188 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Civil Writ Petition No. 19188 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.11.2008 Sukhpal etc. ........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana etc. .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. P S Sikand, Advocate for the petitioners -.- J.S.Khehar , J. (Oral) The petitioners were proceeded against under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation ) Act, 1961 ( as is applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Village Common Lands Act'). The application filed by the Gram Panchayat, Kangthali, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Guhla, District Kaithal, vide order dated 16.07.2008. While allowing the aforesaid application, a direction was issued to the petitioners, to pay a penalty at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year from the year 1998- 99 onwards. Additionally, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Guhla was directed to take possession of the land in co-ordination with the Gram Panchayat, aforementioned. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioners' preferred an appeal before the Collector, Kaithal under Section 13 B of the Village Civil Writ Petition No. 19188 of 2008 2 Common Lands Act. Clause 1 of Section 13-B of the Village Common Lands Act is relevant for the present controversy and the same is accordingly being extracted hereunder:- 13-B. Appeal and revision-(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector of the first grade may, within a period of thirty day from the date of order passed under sub-section (1) or sub section (2) of Section 7 prefer an appeal to the Collector in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, and the Collector may after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order as he deems fit: Provided that no such appeal shall lie unless the amount of penalty, if any, imposed under sub section (2) of Section 7, is deposited with the Collector. (2) The Commissioner may, suo motu or on an application made to him by any person aggrieved by an order passed under the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 7 at any time, call for the record of any proceedings pending before, or orders passed by, any authority subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings or order and pass such order in relation thereto as he may deem fit. Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed unless he has been afforded an opportunity of being heard.” The Collector, Kaithal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 13-B of the Village Common Lands Act by an order dated 22.07.2008 on account of the fact, that the petitioners, herein, had not deposited the penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Civil Writ Petition No. 19188 of 2008 3 Guhla. It is, therefore, that the petitioners preferred a revision petition. While disposing of the aforesaid revision petition, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, found no infirmity in the order passed by the Collector, Kaithal dated 22.07.2008, and accordingly dismissed the same by an order dated 10.09.2008. In fact, the petitioners have approached this Court by impugning the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Guhla dated 16.07.2008. It is apparent from the narration of facts recorded herein above, that the petitioners had efficacious alternative remedy, firstly of preferring an appeal before the Collector, Kaithal, and thereafter, in preferring a revision before the Commissioner, Amabla Division, Ambala. The petitioners could have done so by depositing the penalty determined by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Guhla dated 16.07.2008. The petitioners having not made the aforesaid deposit, the Collector, Kaithal, by his order dated 22.07.2008, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by expressly noticing, that the petitioners had filed the present appeal under Section 13-B of the Village Common Lands Act in consonance with the mandate of the proviso under Section 13-B of the Village Common Lands Act, inasmuch as, the penalty imposed upon the petitioners was not deposited by them till the disposal of the appeal by the Collector, Kaithal, (vide his order dated 22.07.2008.) Having sought instructions, learned counsel for the petitioners affirms, that even till date the penalty amount depicted in the order passed by the Collector, Kaithal dated 22.07.2008 has not been deposited by the petitioners. Having failed to avail of their remedy of appeal in consonance with the provisions of Section 13-B of the Civil Writ Petition No. 19188 of 2008 4 Village Common Lands Act, the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Guhla dated 16.07.2008 has attained finality. It is not possible for us to entertain the instant writ petition as the petitioners' have not availed of their remedy of appeal and revision, statutorily provided under the Village Common Lands Act. It would be unfair to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if we do not take into consideration, the decision rendered by this Court in “Antu and another V The Collector, Yamuna Nagar and others”, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 691, wherein also the appeal had not been entertained by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar on account of the fact, that the penalty had not been deposited by the aggrieved party. We have examined the judgment rendered by this Court in Antu's case (supra). We are, however, of the view that the same is clearly distinguishable from case in hand. In Antu's case (supra), the primary contention of the petitioners was, that the penalty amount could not be determined on account of the fact, that the Assistant Collector, while disposing of the application filed under Section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act, had not depicted the number of years, for which the penalty had to be paid for the unauthorized occupation of the land concerned. It is, therefore, that this Court remanded back the case to the Assistant Collector, Yamuna Nagar, requiring him to re-determine the issue so as to enable the petitioners therein to deposit the penalty amount in consonance with the provisions of Section 13-B of the Village Common Lands Act. Insofar as the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Guhla dated 16.07.2008 in the present controversy is concerned, it has been clearly recorded therein that the petitioners were to deposit Civil Writ Petition No. 19188 of 2008 5 penalty at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year from 1998-99 onwards. There was no difficulty for the petitioner in assessing the amount of penalty imposed and to deposit the same. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners based on the decision in Antu's case (supra). For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this case and the same is accordingly dismissed. [J.S.Khehar] Judge [Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge November 10, 2008 mohan