JUDGMENT
G.R. Majithia and R.K. Nehru, JJ.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector, Naraingarh dated August 14, 1992 ordering his eviction from the disputed land and directing him to pay to Gram Panchayat, Ambli arrears of mesne profits amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- and the appellate order dated November 24, 1992, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, dismissing his appeals, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Two applications under Sections 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) were filed by Gram Panchayat, Ambli and the State of Haryana, through the Medical Officer, Health Centre, Ambli, Tehsil Naraingarh, against the petitioner. It was pleaded therein that the disputed land was reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat during consolidation. The Gram Panchayat gifted the land to the State of Haryana for the construction of Health Centre on it and Mutation No. 1883 dated May 21, 1986 was sanctioned in favour of the State. The petitioner had taken the disputed land on lease from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1986-87 on payment of Rs. 1650/- as lease money per annum. The petitioner did not surrender possession on the expiry of the lease and also did not pay the arrears of rent necessitating the initiation of proceedings under Section 7(1)(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961, against him. The application was rejected by the Assistant Collector I Grade, Naraingarh, vide order dated April 16, 1991, on the ground that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the disputed land as it had gifted the same to the State of Haryana. After the rejection of that application, proceedings under the Act were initiated by the Gram Panchayat and also by the State of Haryana against the petitioner. The petitioner resisted the applications on the ground that the disputed land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and that it had no locus standi to transfer the same to the State of Haryana and that they had already filed a suit against the State of Haryana in the civil Court not to dispossess them forcibly. The Collector, on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had taken the disputed land on lease from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1984-85 for a sum of Rs. 3400/- and had been continuing in illegal possession thereof after the determination of the lease. It was further found that the land was reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat under Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 read with Rule 16(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules and it remained under the management and control of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat had been leasing out the land in public auction. He accordingly ordered eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land on the ground that he was in illegal possession of the same for the last more than seven years and also passed an order for payment of Rs. 1,40,000/- as arrears of lease money. The order of the Collector was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, vide order dated November 24, 1992.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following two submissions :-
(i) On receipt of the applications filed by the Gram Panchayat and the State of Haryana filed under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act, notice under Section 4 was issued to the petitioner, which did not contain any reasons for his eviction from the disputed land; and
(ii) The provisions of Section 7(3) of the Act were not complied with which envisages that order under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 can only be passed after hearing the affected party.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner entered on the disputed land as a lessee of the Gram Panchayat for one year. On the expiry of the lease period, he did not surrender possession to the Gram Panchayat. He also did not pay the arrears of the lease money to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner, who entered into the land as a lessee from the Gram Panchayat, cannot dispute the title of his lessor. We pointedly asked the learned counsel if the petitioner had any independent right on the disputed land. He very fairly stated at the Bar that the petitioner had no independent right on the disputed land except that acquired by him under the base from the Gram Panchayat. He also did not dispute that after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner did not surrender possession of the disputed land to the lessor and also did not pay the arrears of lease money, The learned counsel also could not point out if any prejudice was caused to the petitioner for non-service of a notice under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act says that the grounds on which the eviction is sought have to be given in the notice issued by the Collector on receipt of an application under Section 5 of the Act. The grounds on which the eviction was sought were detailed in the application, the correctness of the grounds has not been disputed. In fact, these cannot be disputed as, on evidence, the pleas of the Gram Panchayat and the State of Haryana have been found to be correct. The submission of the learned counsel that the eviction order is vitiated since notice did not contain grounds of eviction has no merit, more particularly when he could not point out that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner.
5. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act says that arrears of rent can be recovered from the person who is in possession of the public premises unauthorisedly. It further says that the Collector has to determine the damages on account of the use and occupation of the public premises having regard to the principles of assessment of damages as have been prescribed. The Collector assessed the damages for use and occupation of public premises in accordance with the principles prescribed. The learned counsel is not correct in his submission that the notice was not issued to the petitioner. As observed earlier, two composite applications under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act were filed by the Gram Panchayat and the State of Haryana and those were disposed of on merits by the Collector, Naraingarh and the order of the Collector was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.