JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners in this case have been found to be in unauthorised occupation of two pieces of land measuring 95 Kanals 13 Marlas and 114 Kanals 4 Marlas respectively. On this basis, the Assistant Collector vide his orders dated October 15, 1998, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P2 and P3 respectively, ordered their eviction. The petitioners filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated July 10, 2000. A copy is at Annexure P-4. The petitioners filed a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on October 18, 2000. Copy of the order passed by the revisional authority is at Annexure P6. Aggrieved by the orders at Annexures P2, P3, P4 and P6, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. 2. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the possession was not unauthorised. They have decrees in their favour from the Civil Court. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated. 3. We are unable to accept these contentions. The three authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the petitioners had been given land on lease in the year 1982-83 for one year. After expiry of the lease, the petitioners have failed to vacate the land. They have also not paid any rent. In this situation, their possession has been held to be unauthorised. No evidence has been produced to show that these findings are incorrect. 4. Mr. Sharma submits that the petitioners are willing to make the deposits now. Even this plea is not acceptable. The land in tehsil Pehowa carries an annual rent of more than Rs. 5,000/- per acre. The petitioners have remained in possession for the last more than 18 years without paying a penny. Now they are offering to pay Rs. 150/- per acre for the land measuring about 12 and 14 acres respectively. There is no warrant for accepting such a submission. 5. Faced with this situation, Mr. 5,000/- per acre. The petitioners have remained in possession for the last more than 18 years without paying a penny. Now they are offering to pay Rs. 150/- per acre for the land measuring about 12 and 14 acres respectively. There is no warrant for accepting such a submission. 5. Faced with this situation, Mr. Sharma refers to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Karnal Co- operative Farmers Society Ltd. and others, 1993(2) Supreme Court Cases 363 : 1993 PLJ 446 to contend that the decrees passed prior to the amendment of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as amended by Haryana Amendment Act of 1974) are still legal and valid. We are unable to accept the submission. The petitioners have produced copies of the decree-sheets as Annexures P1 and P1/A. It appears that Civil Suit Nos. 828 of 1978 and 860 of 1978 were filed on September 8, 1978 and September 16, 1978 respectively. Both these suits were for declaration and permanent injunction. These were disposed of in terms of the statements of the parties. Consequently, the decrees were passed. What were the circumstances ? What was the actual state of affairs ? Nothing has been disclosed in the two judgments. However, as has been found by the revenue authorities, a fresh lease had been granted to the petitioners in the year 1982, in an open auction. Thus, a limited right to remain in occupation for one year was given to the petitioners. There is nothing to show that the petitioners had not accepted the fresh lease voluntarily. Having done so, the petitioners cannot be now permitted to claim that they were entitled to remain in occupation without paying even the agreed rate of rent for ever. 6. No other point has been raised. 7. The petitioners have remained in occupation of substantial areas of land. They have deprived the true owner of a substantial amount of money. At an average rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre, the land would have fetched at least Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per year. The petitioners have not paid even a penny for the last more than 18 years. There is no equity in their favour. Thus, we find no ground to interfere in the exercise of our equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. 50,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per year. The petitioners have not paid even a penny for the last more than 18 years. There is no equity in their favour. Thus, we find no ground to interfere in the exercise of our equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.