C.W.P.No.23177 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.23177 of 2011 Date of Decision:14.12.2011 Jaibir son of Niranjan ...Petitioner Vs. District Collector, Bhiwani & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. The Gram Panchayat, Hindol (respondent No.35) was stated to have auctioned the village pond for a lease amount of ` 90,000/- per annum, for a period of 8 years, on 22.1.2010 to the petitioner for the purpose of fish breeding. The complainants-private respondents No.2 to 34 (for brevity “the complainants”) moved a complaint under section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) for cancellation of the lease on the ground that the auction was not conducted, as per the rules and without effecting any munadi in the village. Their complaint was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (C), Charkhi Dadri, vide order dated 26.8.2010 (Annexure P2). 2. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P2), the complainants filed the appeal, which was accepted by the District Collector, Bhiwani, vide impugned order dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under:- “I have heard counsel for all the parties and have perused the documents placed on record carefully. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Hindol did not get proceedings of Munadi properly and BDPO, Charkhi Dadri was C.W.P.No.23177 of 2011 -2- also not present at the time of Auction. His signatures were taken lateron. After considering the aforesaid facts and the Provisions of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, I have come to the conclusion that if the appellant is ready to take the Pond on Patta for breeding Fishes @ Rs.1,50,000/- per year after3 years from 22.01.2010 then he should deposit 1/4th of Rs.1.50 lac in Panchayat Department. The Pond will be put to Open Auction as per Rules after 3 years and anybody can take the Pond on patta after giving a bid of more than Rs.1.50 lacs per year and if nobody is found as bidder for Rs.1.50 lacs then the appellant will have to take the pond for Rs.1.50 lacs. Rest of the Terms will be as per Rules. If the appellant also failed to take the Pond on Patta, then his Security amount deposited in Panchayat Department shall be deemed to be forfeited. The appellant has deposited 1/4th amount in the prescribed period on 05.04.2011 as per direction of the undersigned. Therefore, appeal is accepted partly.” 3. The petitioner preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the above impugned order (Annexure P3). 4. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition. 5. As indicated earlier, the Gram Panchayat (respondent No.35) was claimed to have auctioned the village pond to the petitioner. According to complainants, the Sarpanch has illegally leased out the pond to his relative Jaibir (petitioner) without conducting proper munadi. The Collector perused the documents and came to a definite conclusion that the auction was conducted without any proper munadi. At the time of auction, even BDPO was also not present. His signatures were obtained lateron. After taking into consideration all these facts, the Collector decreased the period of lease from 8 years to 3 years and ordered that if the petitioner is ready to take the pond on Patta at the rate of ` 1,50,000/- per year after 3 years from 22.1.2010, then he should deposit its ¼th in the Panchayat Department, and after three years, the pond will be put to auction as per rules. In our opinion, the period of lease has been reduced by the AC 1st Grade keeping in view the facts of the case and interest of the Gram Panchayat. Under C.W.P.No.23177 of 2011 -3- section 10-A of the Act, AC 1st Grade is empowered to cancel the lease or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject to such condition as he may think fit. Therefore, it cannot be said that reduction of lease period is without jurisdiction. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is not required to be interfered in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and same is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge (Satish Kumar Mittal) Judge 14.12.2011 AS