NOOR ILAHI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. I have seen the records of the case, the order of Commissioner dated 17‑8‑71 and have heard the learned counsel forth petitioner. His contentions are as follows:‑

(1) He was put in possession of the land after having been declared as the highest bidder.

(2) He has been paying the rent regularly for the year 1970‑71 & 1971‑72 for which he has produced receipts.

(3) He has installed tube‑well and incurred some expenditure in developing the land.

2. So far he is concerned, the petitioner has therefore done every thing to carry out the purposes of the 10 years lease and had not incurred any disability on account of which he should be dispossessed.

2. It is not clear from the records how the petitioner was given possession of the land and how he was given challan for depositing rent.

3. So far as the petitioner is concerned, if he had been given possession through the revenue staff and if rent had been accepted from him, legally it would not be possible to eject him without any infringement of the tender conditions on the part of the petitioner and without a show‑cause notice. The case is therefore remanded to the Collector through the Commissioner who should examine these aspects and take appropriate action permitted in law and the instructions issued by the Government.

4. Till the matter is disposed of, the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the lot prematurely.

5. Order accordingly.