CWP No. 13484 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13484 of 2006 Date of decision: 3.7.2008 Jagpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Director Rural Development & Panchayats and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents 1,2 and 4. Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for respondent 3. K.S.GAREWAL, J. Jagpal Singh has filed this petition to challenge the order of DDPO dated December 17, 2004, while exercising the powers of Collector under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order passed by the Director Rural Development & Panchayats exercising the powers of Commissioner dated May 19, 2006 has also been challenged. Gram Panchayat, Badshahpur had filed an application under CWP No. 13484 of 2006 2 Section 7 of the Act pleading that Jagpal Singh had taken 11 marlas of land on lease on August 30, 2000 for a period of three years for a sum of Rs. 4300/-. Jagpal Singh had undertaken to hand over possession to the Panchayat after expiry of the lease period. Lease deed had also been executed. Jagpal Singh did not hand over possession after expiry of the lease. In his defence Jagpal Singh pleaded that he was entitled to continue to hold the property on lease on payment of enhanced rent @ 10% after August 30, 2003. The petitioner also sent a pay order dated August 11, 2004 indicating that he intended to keep the property on payment of enhanced rent but this was never considered by the Collector. Reference was made to clause 4 of the resolution dated August 30, 2000 which was to the effect “that in case the lessee wants to keep this property, then he can keep the same by increase of 10% or as per Govt. instructions.” The petitioner's defence was considered but rejected as the Panchayat never agreed to the enhanced rent. Therefore, after August 30, 2003, the petitioner had no right to remain in possession and his eviction was ordered. In appeal it was argued that once the property had been handed over to the petitioner on lease the status of the petitioner was of lessee holding over and unless the tenancy is terminated his possession cannot be held to be illegal. The Commissioner in his order held that the petitioner was bound to hand over the possession back to the Panchayat after expiry of the lease period. Since he did not leave the property he was liable to be ejected. After the expiry of the lease the petitioner's possession became CWP No. 13484 of 2006 3 illegal and unauthorized. In reply filed by the Gram Panchayat, it was pleaded that the petitioner's lease period had not been extended or renewed. The enhanced rent had been returned to the petitioner. We have gone through the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner and find that the petitioner had been validly evicted because he had no right to remain in possession after expiry of the lease. The petitioner had no doubt tendered 10% enhanced rent but this had not been accepted, therefore, the lease did not stand extended. We find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. However, the damages imposed on the petitioner of Rs. 28,660/- which is 20 times is too high. We reduced the damage from 20 times to the double of the lease amount for the period the petitioner continued in possession illegally. Consequently, the petitioner shall pay Rs. 2866/- per year for wrongful occupation of the property after August 30, 2003. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE July 3, 2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) prem JUDGE