CR No. 2363 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2363 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.4.2009 Ajit Singh .. Petitioner v. The Director Rural Development & Panchayats, Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 9.4.2009, passed by the learned District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum- Collector, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2) in proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute. During the pendency of the petition before respondent No. 2, vide order dated 9.4.2009, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 13,000/- as compensation for the earlier harvested crop and Rs. 50,000/- for the wheat crop to be harvested. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no jurisdiction vested with respondent No. 2 to pass interim order directing a party in possession to pay any interim amount for use and occupation of the land. As the prayer in the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat is only for eviction and further prayer therein is for assessment of compensation for use and occupation of the land, that can be done only at the time of final disposal of the petition in case it is found that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the land in question. He further submits that for the previous period, the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 13,000/- only, whereas for the current wheat crop, he has been directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-, which cannot be justified, as there is no increase either in the area of land in possession of the petitioner or the value of the crop. The submission is that the petitioner is in possession of only 38 kanals of land, which will not even yield wheat crop to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-, which he has been directed to pay. Without harvesting the crop, he will not be able to deposit the money with respondent No. 2, as he has to support his family also from the income generated CR No. 2363 of 2009 [2] from the crops sown on the land. It is only the crop of the petitioner which is standing, otherwise the entire crop in the area has already been harvested and any delay in harvesting will cause great loss to the petitioner, as the crop will be damaged. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. While passing the impugned order, respondent No. 2 has recorded a fact therein that the petitioner had consented to deposit the above mentioned amount, to which learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in fact he had only consented for deposit of Rs. 13,000/- as compensation for the earlier harvested crop and he never consented for deposit of Rs. 50,000/- for the wheat crop which is yet to be harvested and the concession has been noticed inadvertently for that. The remedy, in case a wrong concession has been recorded in an order, lies before the same authority. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the same authority for getting the same corrected. However, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that without harvesting the crop, the petitioner may not be able to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which has been fixed by respondent No. 2 and any delay in harvesting the crop will be fatal for the petitioner as the same may be damaged. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing submitted that he will deposit a sum of Rs. 13,000/- on or before 5.5.2009 before harvesting the crop and thereafter, in case he is permitted to harvest the crop, he undertakes to pay another sum of Rs. 25,000/- on or before 22.5.2009. To avoid any loss to the standing crop, which may not be in interest of either of the parties, in peculiar facts of this case, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to deposit the amount in the aforesaid manner. The same shall, however, be subject to the order passed by respondent No. 2 on an application, which may be filed by the petitioner, for getting the clarification regarding consent, noticed in the impugned order. In case, either the petitioner does not move application before respondent No. 2 for getting the correction made in the order passed, within 10 days from today or the same is rejected, the petitioner will deposit balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- on or before 15.6.2009. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.4.2009/mk CR No. 2363 of 2009 [3] mk