AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
In the present civil writ petition, following prayers have been made:-
“WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI for QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-15) PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER, AMBALA DIVISION (RESPONDENT NO. 2), THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.02.2022 (ANNEXURE P-9) PASSED BY THE LD. COLLECTOR, YAMUNA NAGAR (RESPONDENT NO. 3), AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.05.2018 (ANNEXURE P-5) PASSED BY THE LD. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, 1ST GRADE, YAMUNA NAGAR (RESPONDENT NO. 4), WHEREBY THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BE EVICTED AND A PENALTY HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY IMPOSED DESPITE A SERIOUS QUESTION OF TITLE BEING PENDING ADJUDICATION. AND/OR FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE LEARNED COLLECTOR, YAMUNA NAGAR (RESPONDENT NO. 3) TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE P-6) ON MERITS, WITHOUT INSISTING ON THE PRE- DEPOSIT OF THE PENALTY AMOUNT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW;AND/ORFURTHER DIRECTION THAT DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION, THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 29.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-15), 24.02.2022 (ANNEXURE P-9), AND 18.05.2018 (ANNEXURE P-5) SHALL REMAIN STAYED, AND THE RESPONDENTS BE RESTRAINED FROM DISPOSSESSING THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND IN DISPUTE; AND/OR FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ANY OTHER ORDER, WRIT OR DIRECTION WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.”
On 17.07.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
“Present:- Mr. Arvind Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***
Inter alia, relies upon a judgment of Larger Bench of this Court in the case titled as “Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported as 2011(2) PLR 326, to contend that in certain facts and circumstances the condition imposed under the proviso to Section 13B of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 can be condoned/waived.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the impugned order be set aside and the Collector be directed to re-consider the application filed by the petitioner for exemption in view of the law laid down by the said Full Bench.
Notice of motion for 03.08.2026. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G., Haryana, appears & accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve respondent No.5 through dasti process as well. July 17, 2026”
Learned counsel for the State has filed reply, which is taken on record.
During the course of arguments, it is undisputed that, against the order dated 18.05.2018 vide which the application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (presently known as Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961), hereinafter to be referred to as “1961 Act” was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted and the penalty at the rate of Rs.4000/- per acre per annum from the year 2012 was also imposed, an appeal has been filed by the petitioner and even a suit under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act has also been filed by the petitioner. The suit under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act as well as the said appeal are both pending before the Collector. Along with the appeal filed against the order dated 18.05.2018, the petitioner had also filed an application for exemption from paying penalty and the Collector, vide order dated 24.02.2022, had directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount into the panchayat funds and to produce the receipt and thereafter, the appeal filed by the petitioner was clubbed with the suit filed under Section 13- A of the 1961 Act, which are both pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case the suit filed under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act is allowed, then, in that situation, the petitioner would have right in the property in question and that in every likelihood the appeal of the petitioner would be allowed. It is submitted that in the said circumstance, the direction to deposit the amount deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that, as has been argued on 17.07.2026, in certain facts and circumstances, as held by the Full Bench in Ranjit Singh (supra) the conditions imposed under the proviso to Section 13-B of the 1961 Act can be condoned/waived. It is submitted that the order dated 24.02.2022, to the extent that the directions has been given to the petitioner to deposit the penalty be set aside and the said application filed by the petitioner be kept alive till the time the suit under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act is not decided and at the time of final adjudication of the suit under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act as well as the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.05.2018, the said application be considered by the Collector.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that even the respondents be granted liberty to oppose the application as well as the suit and the appeal at the time of final arguments.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents, the present writ petition is partly allowed with the following observations / directions:-
The order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner is set aside.
ii) The order dated 24.02.2022 is partly set aside to the extent that the petitioner has been directed to deposit the penalty amount imposed during the pendency of the appeal and also during the pendency of the suit under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act.
iii) The Collector is directed to decide the suit under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act as well as the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.05.2018 together and, at the time of deciding the same, also consider the application of the petitioner for waiver of deposit of the penalty.
iv) It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the appeal, suit under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act as well as the application for waiver of penalty and it would be open to all the parties concerned to raise all the pleas in the said proceedings and the Collector would decide the same independently in accordance with law after hearing all the parties.