CWP No.17744 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17744 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 Navinder Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR --- Present: Mr. S.L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum- Collector, Tarn Taran, whereby on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from 11 kanals 18 marlas of land owned by the Gram Panchayat, while coming to the conclusion that the possession of the petitioner on the said land was illegal and unauthorised. It was further ordered that the petitioner is liable to pay the mesne profits, which was assessed @ ` 15,000 per killa for the last three years, for use and occupation of the said land; and the order dated 10.6.2011, whereby the appeal filed by CWP No.17744 of 2011 -2- the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Commissioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned orders. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner has nothing to do with the possession of the land in question. He was President of the Cremation Welfare Society and the land in question is being used by the Society for welfare of the village community. Therefore, the impugned orders, particularly the portion of the order whereby the petitioner has been held liable to pay mesne profits @ ` 15,000 per killa for three years, for use and occupation of the said land, is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel also argued that the land in question does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the impugned orders could not have been passed against him on the application of the Gram Panchayat. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, we do not find any ground to interfere in the same. In the revenue record, the land in question measuring 11 kanals 18 marlas is recorded under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Khasra No.231 measuring 6 kanals 10 marlas is in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and the remaining land measuring 5 kanals is under the management of the Gram Panchayat. Both the authorities below have found that the petitioner has illegally occupied the said land from the last three years and using the same for his income. This land was never allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat or given to him on lease. His possession on the said land is totally unauthorised. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that CWP No.17744 of 2011 -3- the petitioner never remained in possession of this land and the same is being used by the Cremation Welfare Society for the welfare of the village community. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. In our opinion, the said contention cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction because both the authorities below have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner remained in illegal and unauthorised possession of the said land, therefore, he was ordered to be evicted and directed to pay the mesne profits. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Collector is empowered to order for charge of the mesne profits while ordering the eviction of an illegal occupant. Therefore, in our view, the impugned orders, including the portion of the order whereby the petitioner has been held liable to pay mesne profits @ ` 15,000 per killa for three years, for use and occupation of the said land, cannot be said to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Further, the assessment of fine of ` 66,937 by the Collector also cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable because the same has been ordered to be assessed @ ` 15,000 per killa per year. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 21, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) vkg JUDGE