CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Harbhajan Singh alias Bhajan Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 12 March 1991 · Citation: (1991) PLJ 299 : (1991) 2 PLR 681 : (1992) 1 RRR 178 : (1991) 2 RRR 314

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.P.Bhandari, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 5087 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 379 words

K.P. Bhandari, J.

1.

This writ petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur dated 20.5.1984 (Annexure P.2 and the order of the Collector dated 29.10.1982).

2.

On the application of the Municipal Committee under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, the Collector ordered the petitioner to be evicted from the land in dispute. The petitioner contested before the Collector that the land in dispute is not a public premises and therefore, the Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The Collector held that the land in dispute is a public premises and ordered the eviction of the petitioner and also directed that the petitioner should pay damages for use and occupation amounting to Rs. 220/.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Jullundur Division, Jullundur. The Commissioner has dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 30.5.1984.

4.

It has been vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record to show that the land in dispute is a public premises. The Municipal Committee has not produced any evidentiary document on record to show that the land in dispute is a public premises. The Municipal Committee under the law maintains the record regarding the property belonging to the Municipal Committee. No such record has been produced in this case. In cases where the question of ownership is involved, it is obligatory on the Authority under the Public Premises Act to frame proper issue and give the parties proper opportunity to produce the evidence. The question of title cannot be decided summarily without framing any issue in the case and without giving the parties proper opportunity of being heard. In my view, the order of the Collector suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as he did not frame any issue in the case. There was no documentary evidence before him from which it can be concluded that the land in dispute is a public property. The Commissioner did not appreciate that the order of the Collector suffers from patent illegalities discussed above.

5.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. No costs.