JUDGMENT Mr. Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral): - This petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 22.06.2000 (Annexure P-2), passed by Collector, Ellenabad. 2. Municipal Committee, Rania, District Sirsa filed an application under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1972 (for short, the Act, 1972) with the contention that Municipal Committee is owner of the disputed land. The petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the same and, therefore, the petitioner by evicted from the land in question and occupation charges, accordingly, be awarded. The application has been allowed. 3. The petitioner went up in appeal before Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar that has been dismissed by him vide impugned order dated 26.10.2006 (Annexure P-5) essentially recording a finding that it stands established that neither the petitioner had been able to prove the nature of his possession nor his right to continue in possession as a lessee or owner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to justify the grounds taken in the petition on the basis of entirely new material. The case sought to be set up by the petitioner has seen the light of the day for the first time in this Court. The material on which reliance has been placed was not produced before the prescribed authority under the Act or the appellate authority for its consideration and evaluating its evidentiary value. In such circumstances, learned counsel has not been able to show to this Court any ground on which the said new material can be considered so as to evaluate its evidentiary value at this stage. 5. The petition, accordingly, in that regard is dismissed. 6. Learned counsel, however, contends that penalty to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year as occupation charges has been imposed. The petitioner, however, has not been heard on that count. The petitioner was required to be heard in regard to quantum of occupation charges. 7. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed to the extent that the orders Annexure P-2 and P-S call for no interference. The petitioner has been found to be in unauthorized possession of the land owned by Municipal Committee for the right reasons, on the basis of material placed before the prescribed authority. 8. 7. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed to the extent that the orders Annexure P-2 and P-S call for no interference. The petitioner has been found to be in unauthorized possession of the land owned by Municipal Committee for the right reasons, on the basis of material placed before the prescribed authority. 8. In regard to quantum of occupation charges to be imposed and recovery made from the petitioner, the case is relegated back to the prescribed authority under the Act, 1972. The petitioner would be heard on the said limited issues and a speaking order passed. 9. The petition is disposed of in above terms. --------------