Civil Writ Petition No.6828 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 06 , 2009 Suraj Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner claims to be a lessee on land measuring 18 kanals-17 marlas, situated in village Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. He was recorded as lessee in the year 1975-76 on payment of Chakota of Rs.225/- per annum. In 1988-89, the petitioner was given this land on lease, as is claimed, at the rate of Rs.670/- per month. Thereafter this land was leased to one Balbir Kumar, but the possession was not delivered. The petitioner took the matter to civil court. As per the petitioner, the land, which is in his possession, is a non-escheated Nazool land and was transferred by way of an open Civil Writ Petition No.6828 of 2009 : 2 : auction in favour of Chuhar Singh, who did not belong to scheduled caste category. Subsequently, application for ejectment of the petitioner was filed by Tehsildar under the provisions of Public Premises Act. The petitioner in turn submitted a representation to the Chief Minister for allotment of this land, he being a landless person and on the ground that he was cultivating the same. The Collector, however, dismissed this application filed by Tehsildar. On an appeal filed by the respondent-State, the case was remanded back to the Collector with a specific direction to see whether petitioner was a lessee or an unauthorised occupant in possession. In the meantime, Rehabilitation Department issued instructions by way of public notice to transfer the land to landless persons, who were in unauthorised occupation of the Government land, which was evacuee property. The petitioner claims that he, being a landless person, was entitled to purchase this land being in his possession. The petitioner appears to have filed an application which was processed and as per the report dated 9.7.2002, the market value of the land was also assessed. Since the application for allotment was being considered, the ejectment proceedings pending before Collector against the petitioner were adjourned sine-die to await decision by the State Government in regard to the allotment. Further action taken, if any, is not disclosed. Subsequently, the Collector vide his order dated 4.7.2006 observed that the possession of the petitioner over the land is continuing as a tenant, but he had failed to deposit lease money from 2000-2001 to 2006 at the rate of Rs.1800/- per annum. He was accordingly directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,800/-. In addition, the Civil Writ Petition No.6828 of 2009 : 3 : Collector also passed an order requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,10,000/- with further direction that the land be transferred to the name of the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have deposited this amount before the Collector. Aggrieved against these directions, State filed an appeal which was accepted by the Commissioner on 30.5.2007. The order passed by the Collector was set-aside on the ground that the issue before the Collector was to see whether the petitioner was to be ejected from the land. The case had been remanded to the Collector only to see if the petitioner was a lessee or an unauthorised occupant. As per the Commissioner, the Collector had exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- and by ordering transfer of the land to his name. This view taken by the Commissioner was up-held by the Financial Commissioner and is now impugned through the present writ petition. The view taken by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner is just and reasonable. The issue before the Collector was to see if the petitioner was to be ejected or not. While dealing with the application filed by the State for ejectment of the petitioner, the Collector was not justified in issuing direction for allotting this land to the petitioner on payment of the amount as stated. The orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, thus, would not call for any interference. The case of the petitioner for allotment of the land as per policy was in progress separately. The apprehension expressed by the counsel that the impugned order may influence the case for allotment of land under consideration is ill- founded. That issue is to be considered separately as per the policy. Civil Writ Petition No.6828 of 2009 : 4 : The decision in the writ would not in any manner affect the right of the petitioner to seek allotment of this land being a landless person and the land being non-escheated Nazool land in accordance with law for which his application is under consideration. The writ petition does not call for any interference. May 06, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE