Judgment:
V.K. Bali, J.
1. Petitioners Roshan Lal and others through present writ filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector Karnal vide which they had been evicted from the land in dispute under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
2. One of the points raised in the writ petition is that a lessee whose lease has already expired and who is in possession, can be ejected from the land in accordance with law i.e. either by filing a suit or under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. For the aforestated stand, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 17276 of 1991 'Om Parkash v. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade,' 1, decided on April 1, 1992: (1992-2) 102 P.L.R. 97 (D.B.). I was one of the members of the Bench in the Civil Writ Petition aforesaid . While dealing with the matter aforesaid, the Court held 'present is a case of a lessee whose lease has already expired and is in possession. He can be ejected from the land in accordance with law either by filing a suit or under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. The observations made above are in direct conflict with a Division Bench judgment of this Court in 'Jaimal v. Commissioner, Ambala Division'2, 1969 P.LJ. 378. While deciding Jaimal's case (supra), the Court took into consideration Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. Rule 19 which defines unauthorised occupation of Shamlat Deh reads thus:-
'19. Unauthorised occupation of Shamlat Deh -- For purposes of Section 7 of the Act, a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorized occupation of any land in Shamlat Deh -- (a) Where he has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, entered into possession there of otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant of by the Panchayat; or
(b) Where he being an allottee, lessee or grantee, has, by reason of the determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant in accordance with the terms in that behalf, therein contained, ceased whether before or after the commencement of the Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such land in Shamlat Deh; or
(c) where any person authorised to occupy any land in Shamlat Deh has, whether before or after the commencement of the Act -
(i) sub-let in contravention of the terms of allotment lease or grant, without the permission of the Panchayat or of any other authority competent to permit such sub-letting the whole or any part of such land in Shamlat Deh; or
(ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such land in Shamlat Deh.
Explanation - For purposes of clause (a), a person shall not merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent be deemed to have entered into possession as allottee, lessee or grantee.'
The vires of Rule 19 were also upheld in Jaimal's case (supra). In a recent decision recorded in 'The Gram Panchayat of Village Bhagal v. Bachna,'3 1987 P.LJ. 656 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has held that upon expiry of term of tenancy, the person in occupation of land had no authority to continue in occupation of the common land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. He, upon the expiry of five years terms, had thus become an unauthorised occupant. A Single Bench of this Court in Fatia v. Shri B.R. Anand, IAS, Collector Kurukshetra,'4 (1987-2) 92 P.L.R. 673 followed the judgment given by the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat's case (supra). Neither Rule 19 nor the judgments that have been referred to above were noticed by us while deciding Civil Writ Petition No. 17276 of 1991, Om Parkash v. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade,1 (supra). The papers of this case be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench as the decision recorded in Civil Writ Petition No. 17276 of 1991 does not appear to be laying correct law. The petitioners who are in possession and have obtained stay do not deserve to remain in occupation of the land any more without atleast paying some amount for, use and occupation. It is admitted position that for the kind of land which is in their occupation, Gram Panchayat can earn minimum of Rs. 4,500/- per acre per year ft is, thus, ordered that the petitioners would pay to the Gram Panchayat at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per acre per year from the date when the Assistant Collector passed orders of eviction against them. If they do not pay this amount within a period of one month from today, it shall be open to the Gram Panchayat to execute the order of eviction passed against them.