LPA No. 551 of 2009 :1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 551 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.10.2009 Gram Panchayat, Village Munda Pind. ....Appellant. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar Present: Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Manish Parbhakar, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). It is not a matter of dispute, that respondent No.4 was in unauthorized possession of land owned by the Gram Panchayat i.e. the appellant herein. Consequent upon the proceedings initiated under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, the Gram Panchayat i.e. the appellant herein, succeeded and respondent No.4, who was held to be in unauthorized occupation, was ordered to be evicted. Consequent upon the passing of the order of eviction, respondent No.4 has admittedly handed over vacant possession of the land to the appellant. The only issue which is subject matter of consideration in the instant Letters Patent Appeal pertains to the quantum of penalty to be LPA No. 551 of 2009 :2: imposed on respondent No.4 for his unauthorized occupation of the Gram Panchayat land. By the impugned order, which was subject matter of challenge at the hands of respondent No.4 in Civil Writ Petition No.2379 of 2009, penalty quantified at twenty times the rate of rent was sought to be imposed on respondent No.4. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 14.5.2009, a learned Single Judge of this Court arrived at the conclusion, that a penalty of Rs.1,28,000/- would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is this aspect of the order rendered by the learned Single Judge, which is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the appellant through the instant Letters Patent Appeal. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is based on Rule 20A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 1964 Rules). Rule 20A is being extracted hereunder: - “20A Damages:- (1) If any person who is a lessee of any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat does not deliver to the Panchayat vacant possession of the land, immediately after the expiry of the period of lease, he shall for the period he fails to do so, be liable to pay damages to the Panchayat equivalent to twenty times, the amount which would have payable to the Panchayat had the lease of such land continued during that period. (2) The provisions contained in sub- rule (1) shall be deemed to be one of the terms of each lease of land granted by the Panchayat after the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation ( 3rd Amendment ) Rules 1978.” A perusal of the aforesaid rule reveals, that the rule making authority in its wisdom made it mandatory to determine the quantum of penalty at twenty times the rate of rent in case a lessee does not deliver vacant possession of LPA No. 551 of 2009 :3: the land leased to him, on the expiry of the period of lease. It is not so, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. Respondent No.4 has never been a lessee under the appellant, and as such, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant so as to invoke the mandate of Rule 20A of the 1964 Rules, to determine the quantum of penalty to be imposed on respondent No.4. No separate reason has been depicted in the grounds of appeal or even during the course of hearing to suggest, why the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge reducing the penalty to Rs.1,28,000/-, is not reasonable or is insufficient. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find no justification, whatsoever, to interfere in the penalty imposed by the learned Single Judge. No other contention was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) Judge 22.10.2009 sk.