IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9063 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 16, 2011 Angrej Singh and others. …Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. ***** Paramjeet Singh, J. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition challenging order dated 02.05.2007 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No.3 – District Development and Panchayat Officer, exercising the powers of Collector, whereby lease of 354 bighas in favour of petitioners has been cancelled under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and against order dated CWP No. 9063 of 2009 21.05.2009 (Annexure P/7) passed in appeal by respondent No.2 – Director, Rural and Development and Panchayat, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act; and further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the land in dispute to the petitioners. The brief facts of the present case are that in pursuance to resolution dated 07.04.2004, Gram Panchayat, Village Sarangpur, leased out the shamlat land measuring 354 bighas through auction in favour of the petitioners being the highest bidder for 5 years (2004-05 to 2009-10) in the presence of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and the members of the Panchayat. It was one of the conditions in the lease deed that lease amount will increase by 10 % every year. With these terms, a Pattanama was executed in favour of the petitioners. However, respondent No.7 – Sat Pal along with others residents of the village filed a petition under Section 10-A of the Act before respondent No.3- District Development and Panchayat Officer –cum – Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali, for cancellation of lease dated 07.04.2004. In that proceedings, order dated 02.05.2007 (Annexure P/3) was passed whereby the lease of the petitioners was cancelled. Notices were issued to the respondents and respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5, in the petition under Section 10- A of the Act, were appeared and contested the claim of the petitioners. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 CWP No. 9063 of 2009 The main contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners got the lease in auction for land measuring 354 bighas being highest bidder for five years (2004-05 to 2009-10). The lease has been cancelled after three years vide order dated 2.5.2007 (Annexure P/3), This action of the authority is wrong, illegal and arbitrary. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were granted lease of the land measuring 354 bighas for five years (2004-05 to 2009-10) in auction. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have enjoyed the lease for three years and the lease money payable was yearwise. The Collector had recorded a finding that Sarpanch had not produced any record of proclamation made, no details have been mentioned in the register of lease deeds that for how many and from which period this auction has been made. The auction has been finalized at the rate of Rs.192/- per bigha which is a very low rate. The finding of the Collector is also to the effect that auction has not been held openly, as such, the auction was cancelled and direction was issued to auction the property again in accordance with the rules. This finding has been affirmed in appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 10-A (7) of the Act before the Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner. The findings of fact had been recorded by the competent authority which we are not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the Commissioner had stayed fresh auction of the shamlat land in dispute. Despite this stay, Gram Panchayat again 3 CWP No. 9063 of 2009 auctioned this land measuring 590 bighas which includes the land auctioned in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a contempt petition before the Commissioner for violation of the order. The Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners as infructuous. The petitioners filed CWP No. 14083 of 2007 in this Court and this Court vide order dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure P/6), set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners on merit. Thereafter, the Commissioner decided the appeal by recording a finding that the term of the bid/auction which was carried out on 07.04.2004 has expired on 06.04.2009. The prayer for restoration of the remaining period of lease term cannot be extended as now there remains no period. So, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. We are in agreement with the findings of the Commissioner. Firstly, the lease period had already expired, secondly, already fresh auction has been conducted on 14.06.008 in the presence of Block Development and Panchayat Officer for a sum of Rs.4,66,100/- for one year. The earlier auction has only fetched a sum of Rs.2,07,000/-. In this manner, there is threefold increase in a year. The reason for low rate of auction can be that the earlier auction was not by way of due publication / proclaimation. We find no reasons and cogent ground to extend the remaining period of lease which the petitioners are pressing hard. Admittedly, the petitioners have been paying lease money on year to year basis, as such, they are not at loss in any manner, for whatever period, they have paid the lease money, they have enjoyed the period. Now, the petitioners are not 4 CWP No. 9063 of 2009 entitled to extension in the period of lease which has already expired on 06.04.2009. In our opinion, extension of lease period at the old rate would not be in the interest of public, as well as, the Gram Panchayat as the prices for lease money per year per acre has increased manifold. Therefore, in our opinion, no ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE November 16, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 5