Ranjit Singh, J.— State of Haryana through Ex ecutive Engineer, Hansi, Water Service Division, Hansi, has filed this writ petition to impugn the order passed by S.D.O. (Civil), Hansi, whereby the application for recovery of Rs. 65,925-5IP on account of unauthorised use and occupation and damages under Section 7(2) of the Haryana Pub lic Premises Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act was rejected by the SDO against which the Commissioner has rejected the appeal. 2. Government land measuring 2.3 acres situated in village Petwar, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hisar, was auctioned on lease to respondent, Ish war Singh by Irrigation Department, Haryana, for a period of one year (1988-89). Respondent allegedly did not vacate this land after expiry of his lease period till 1995. The Department had fixed the date for auction of the land for all these years but nobody came forward to bid for the same as the land was in unauthorized possession of the respondent. 3. On 14.12.1992, the respondent was issued a notice to vacate the land but he did not do so. Fi nally, he handed over the possession of the land to the Department on 3.6.1995. 4. On 29.3.1996, on direction of Executive Engi neer of Hansi Water Division, SDO (Canal) served a notice to the respondent to deposit sum of Rs. 50,000/- for unauthorized use and occupa tion of the land, as calculated at lease rate. The re spondent filed reply stating that he was not liable to pay anything but still was ready to pay the amount on average basis. The petitioners then filed an application before SDO (Civil) for recov ery of the amount as already noticed for un authorized use and occupation of this land. The SDO (Civil) dismissed the application on 13.9.2004, against which the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner. 5. The respondent was proceeded exparte and so the Commissioner allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to deposit Rs. 65,925/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent im pugned the said order by filing Civil Writ Peti tion, which was dismissed as withdrawn with lib erty to the respondent to approach the competent authority for correction of mistake. The respon dent then filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C for deciding the appeal afresh.
65,925/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent im pugned the said order by filing Civil Writ Peti tion, which was dismissed as withdrawn with lib erty to the respondent to approach the competent authority for correction of mistake. The respon dent then filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C for deciding the appeal afresh. The Com missioner, Hisar Division, has now dismissed the appeal on 13.9.2009 and hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition to impugn the orders passed by the SDO as well as the Commis sioner. 6. The respondent has filed a written statement, contesting the prayer made in the writ petition. As per the respondent, the land in question was auctioned for the year 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per acre per annum. Thereafter, the land was leased at the rate of Rs. 140/- per acre per annum for the year 1988-89. After 1988- 89, the land was never leased to the respondent and hence, the same was lying vacant. Reference is made to khasra girdawaries for the years 1988 to 1993 to substantiate this assertion. The respondent would allege that this land in fact was being cultivated by the officials of the peti tioner-Department themselves and the respon dent was only forced to plaugh the same for growing fodder grass for use of the officials of the petitioner Department for their cattle etc. It is al leged that the present petition is filed by the peti tioners to save their skin, so that no departmental action is taken against them for not leasing this land by way of auction after 1988- 89. Accord ingly, the respondent would plead that the im pugned orders are fully justified and are in ac cordance with law. 7. The Collector has declined the prayer of the pe titioners on the ground that as per the revenue re cord, ownership of the land is in favour of the State and in the column of cultivation Executive Engineer is entered. The Irrigation Department failed to prove that after the year 1989, this land was being cultivated by the respondent, Ishwar Singh, as there was no such entry found in the revenue record. The prayer for recovery of charges for use and occupation was accordingly dismissed. 8.
The Irrigation Department failed to prove that after the year 1989, this land was being cultivated by the respondent, Ishwar Singh, as there was no such entry found in the revenue record. The prayer for recovery of charges for use and occupation was accordingly dismissed. 8. In an order passed ex-parte against the respon dent, the Commissioner had directed the dam ages for use and occupation against the respon dent but later has dismissed the claim by uphold ing the order passed by the Collector. The Com missioner had asked the Department the reason as to why it had not auctioned the disputed land on lease from 1989 to 1995. The Department could not submit any reply to this query. From this and from perusal of the girdawari, the Commissioner concluded that the argument advanced by the re spondent carried force. The Commissioner has rightly observed that it was the duty of the De partment to auction the land on lease but no auc tion was held, which would amount to miscon duct. The name of the respondent was also not found reflected in the revenue girdawaries. It is also noticed that the person who had taken the land on lease for 13 years from 1977 to 1989 would never make an attempt to unauthorizedly occupy the land from the year 1990 onwards. The assertions of the respondent were found fortified from the circumstances of the case that the De partment never took any action to dispossess the respondent by taking police help or otherwise. The petitioners could not show that the respon dent was in any unauthorized possession of the land or that he had put in any hindrance in the cul tivation of this land. It is noticed that the allega tions of unauthorised possession is uncertain and baseless excuse advanced by the Department. The Commissioner accordingly has observed that from 1989-90 onwards, officials of the De partment started cultivating the land themselves and this petition was filed only to save them selves. The appeal filed by the Department was accordingly dismissed. 9. No satisfactory reasons could be advanced or placed before me to justify the action of the peti tioner-Department. The petitioners could not show action if any taken by them to evict the re spondent in case he was found to be in any un authorized possession.
The appeal filed by the Department was accordingly dismissed. 9. No satisfactory reasons could be advanced or placed before me to justify the action of the peti tioner-Department. The petitioners could not show action if any taken by them to evict the re spondent in case he was found to be in any un authorized possession. Had it been so, the peti tioner-Department could have easily taken police help to dispossess the respondent. The facts in this case show that the officials of the petitioner-Department have misused the Government prop erty. The names of the persons who had remained at the helm of affair during the relevant period has already been disclosed in status report dated 10.1.2012 and the appropriate action may be in itiated against them for misuse of Government property. No case for interference in writ petition is made out. The same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.