Inderjit Singh vs State of Punjab

G.R. Majithia, J.

The petitioner has assailed the appellate order dated January 8, 1980 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala in M.A. No. 120 of 197879, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

It is not necessary to state the facts in detail. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala in his order to the effect that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of land measuring 760 sq. yard adjacent of Plot No. 215R, Model Town, Ludhiana, which land is the property of the Rehabilitation Department, has not been assailed. The petitioner is owner of plot No. 215R situated in Model Town, Ludhiana, which was allotted to him. Adjoining this plot is vacant land measuring 760 sq. yards. Tehsildar (Sales) on behalf of the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, moved an application dated June 1, 1976 to Collector SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Ludhiana for eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act). The Collector, on examining the evidence produced before him and also taking into consideration the earlier judgment rendered by civil Court in case No. 26 of 27.2.74 (Gurdit Singh v. The State of Punjab & others) decided on December 12, 1974, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in unauthorised and unlawful possession of the disputed land. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned Commissioner upheld the finding of the Collector.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputed premises cannot fall within the ambit of ''public premises'' as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. Section 2(e) reads thus :

"Public premises" means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the State Government and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of

(i) Any Municipal committee, Notified Areas Committee, Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Panchayat or Improvement Trust;

(ii) Any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less than fiftyone per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; and

(iii) any Corporation not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or a local authority established by or under a Central Act as defined in clause (7) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or a Punjab Act and owned or controlled by the State Government."

Any premises belonging to the State Government fall within the definition of ''public premises''. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act defines ''premises'' as meaning any land, whether used for agricultural or nonagricultural purposes, or any building or part of a building. The land which is used for nonagricultural purposes falls within the ambit of the term ''premises'' and if it belongs to the State Government, it is a public premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct in his submission that the disputed premises are not public premises. Indisputably, the disputed premises belong to the State Government and as such are public premises.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.