CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18296 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 14, 2009 Reham Nawaj .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for respondent No.5 **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner claims that he being a co-sharer of the village is owner in possession of the land in dispute, which is described as Shamlat Deh Majkoor. On 15.11.2006, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar, passed an order of ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute and also imposed a penalty of Rs.2,40,000/- @ Rs.10,000/- per hectare from the year 2000. Petitioner pleads that the land in question is gair mumkin forest and gair mumkin Nadi and only part of land bearing Khasra No.32/7 is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18296 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: under self cultivation of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed on 27.2.2007 as he did not deposit the penalty. The revision petition was also dismissed and so too the petition filed by him before the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that penalty has been imposed without giving any specific reason. It is also not disclosed as to how maximum penalty has been levied. The background of the case is that the petitioner in fact was evicted on 17.5.2004 against which he filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 5.5.2005. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Civil Writ Petition No.13355 of 2006. As per the petitioner, this writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the authority awarding the penalty has not given any reason as to why maximum penalty was required to be imposed. The petitioner has not annexed the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 13355 of 2006 but the same has been annexed with the reply. It is specifically noticed in the said order that the petitioner had then made a limited challenge to the impugned order with regard to the imposition of penalty. This Court in that background observed that the petitioner ought to have been given reasonable opportunity to explain as to why lesser penalty should not be imposed. Now the penalty has been imposed, which is under challenge. The challenge to the eviction order as such was final and could not be re-opened, yet the counsel has made every effort to challenge the order of his eviction. His attention was drawn to order, Annexure R-4 for him to relent. The petitioner, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18296 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: despite grant of opportunity, could not show as to why lesser penalty needs to be imposed in this case. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner may not require any consideration. As disclosed in the reply, the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity for producing evidence but he failed to do so in support of his plea and thereafter the order of his ejectment was made. As seen from the reply, the petitioner had remained Sarpanch of the village for a period of 18 years and being Sarpanch he had been auctioning this land to different persons. The petitioner had got planted the eucalyptus trees by passing a resolution and thereafter put these trees to auction by cutting and removing these by passing another resolution. This would clearly indicate that the land in dispute was acknowledged to be in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner claims for lesser compensation or his right to have this property as an owner certainly is farfetched. The counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, had the courage to submit that he was prepared to deposit the entire amount of penalty if he is allowed to sell/cut the trees. The petitioner has nothing in his favour to show. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. May 14, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE