Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 168 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. State of Haryana

2001-01-31

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On May 12, 1999 the Panchayat auctioned the Shamlat land. Different pieces of land were leased out to 34 persons. After the elections in March 2000 a complaint was made in which it was inter alia alleged that the land had been given "on less price". On receipt of this complaint the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Karnal, issued show cause notice to all the lessees including the present petitioners. They were called upon to explain as to why the lease in their favour be not cancelled. The petitioners filed a reply to the show cause notice. A copy of the reply has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. After consideration of the matter, the Assistant Collector vide his order dated May 22, 2000 found that the market rate of the land varied from Rs. 8,000/- per acre to Rs. 1,200/- per acre depending upon the kind of land. It was noticed that the land had been leased out at a lesser rate. The petitioners had offered to pay money as assessed by the authority. Thus, the Assistant Collector directed the lessees to deposit the extra amount within two weeks failing which the lease was liable to be cancelled. 2. The Panchayat as well as the lessees were aggrieved by the order. The Panchayat filed an appeal to claim that the revised rate should be applicable to the entire term of the lease which was two years. The lessees claimed that the rate as fixed by the Assistant Collector was excessive. After consideration of the matter, the Collector vide his order dated August 24, 2000 accepted the appeal of the Gram Panchayat and held that the lessees were liable to pay at the revised rate for both the years. So far as the appeal filed by the lessees was concerned, it was found that the rate was not excessive. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. A copy of the order has been produced on the record as Annexure P-5. The petitioners pray that the orders dated May 22, 2000 and August 24, 2000 passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector respectively be quashed. 3. We have heard Mr. B.S. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioners. He contends that the rate as fixed by the Assistant Collector was not in conformity with law. He had held no enquiry. The petitioners pray that the orders dated May 22, 2000 and August 24, 2000 passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector respectively be quashed. 3. We have heard Mr. B.S. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioners. He contends that the rate as fixed by the Assistant Collector was not in conformity with law. He had held no enquiry. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated. Learned counsel has further submitted that the action is violative of the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act inasmuch as the complainant could not be considered to be an aggrieved party so as to be entitled to challenge the lease in favour of the petitioners. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Collector shows that the petitioners had voluntarily agreed to the enhancement of the rate. Still further, nothing has been produced on the record to show that the rate of lease as assessed by the Assistant Collector was in any way arbitrary or excessive. Admittedly, the land measuring 396 Kanals 19 Marlas was given away at the rate of Rs. 4,600/- per acre per annum. Another piece of land measuring 864 Kanals was leased out for Rs. 2,35,775/-. The third category of land consisted of Johar which measured 30 Kanals 18 Marlas was leased out for a total sum of Rs. 7,000/-. Thus, the three qualities of land were leased out at the rate of Rs. 4,600/-, Rs. 2,179/- and Rs. 875/- per acre per annum. It was alleged that these rates were low. The lands were being leased out at much higher rates in the adjoining areas. On consideration of the matter, the petitioners had conceded before the Assistant Collector that they would be willing to pay at a higher rate. The representative of the Panchayat had stated that the market value was Rs. 8,000/- for Chahi land, Rs. 4,800/- for Charand and Rs. 1,200/- for Johar per acre per year. The petitioners had not in any way suggested that the rate as proposed was excessive. Thus, the Assistant Collector has desisted from cancelling the land and allowed the petitioners to pay at the higher rate. Since the auction had been held in the year 1999 and the land had been given by a composite lease for a period of two years, the revised rate was to be applicable to the entire period of lease. Thus, the Assistant Collector has desisted from cancelling the land and allowed the petitioners to pay at the higher rate. Since the auction had been held in the year 1999 and the land had been given by a composite lease for a period of two years, the revised rate was to be applicable to the entire period of lease. The Collector had, thus, rightly held that the lessees shall be liable to pay at the revised rates for the full year. We find no infirmity in the action taken by the authorities. 5. Mr. Bedi contends that the Assistant Collector had to conduct an enquiry and find out as to what was the prevailing rate. Since no enquiry had been held, the authority had erred in accepting the rate as suggested by the representative of the Panchayat. 6. We are unable to accept this contention. The rates were admittedly proposed in the presence of the petitioners. They had not even suggested that the rates were excessive. Still further, nothing has been produced before us to show that the rates as fixed by the Assistant Collector were in fact excessive. In this situation, we are unable to accept the plea that the rates was exhorbitant or that they had been wrongly accepted by the authorities. 7. Mr. Bedi contends that the complainant had no cause of action. The mere fact that he was willing to pay at a higher rate was no ground for varying the terms of the lease. Since the impugned orders have been passed on account of the complaint made by the respondent No. 5, the impugned orders do not conform to the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act and should, thus, be quashed. 8. The contention cannot be accepted. A perusal of Section 10-A shows that the Assistant Collector is empowered to call for and examine the record of any case for "satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of" any sale, lease, contract or agreement. The 5th respondent had merely complained. Thereafter, the authority had the power to take suo motu action. It had chosen to give a show cause notice to the petitioners. They had filed a reply. The matter was then considered. Appropriate orders were passed. In the process, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act. 9. Mr. Thereafter, the authority had the power to take suo motu action. It had chosen to give a show cause notice to the petitioners. They had filed a reply. The matter was then considered. Appropriate orders were passed. In the process, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act. 9. Mr. Bedi contends that the mere fact that the 5th respondent had offered to pay at a higher rate could not be a ground for varying the terms of the lease. Assuming it to be so, we find no infirmity in the action of the Assistant Collector. He had the duty and the power to examine the legality and propriety of the lease given by the Panchayat. If on consideration of the matter he found that the rate at which the land was leased out was very low, he was entitled to even annul the lease. Since the petitioners had offered to pay at the higher rate, they decided to let them continue on the land. 10. Mr. Bedi has referred to the two decisions in Sohan Singh and others v. Shri Surjit Singh Sodhi, Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others, 1973 PLJ 71 and Devinder Singh v. The Collector, Yamuna Nagar and others, 1995 PLJ 70. The factual position in these two cases was totally different. The ratio of the decision has no relevance to the present case. 11. No other point has been raised. 12. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. 13. It is, consequently, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.