Ram Narain vs State of Punjab and others

K.S. Tiwana, J.(Oral)

The petitioner, who is a resident of village Ghanaur, District Patiala, has approached this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing Annexure P.6 dated 26.9.1975 issued by the Sub Divisional Engineer, Construction SubDivision No.IX, Punjab PWD (B & R), Patiala (respondent No. 2) asking him to remove the unauthorised encroachment on the PWD land.

The case of the petitioner, as stated in the petition is that he has been carrying on his business for the last 30 years inthe three shops at village Ghanaur, shown as X,Y and Z in the site plan as Annexure P.1 to this petition. He claims that he is in possession of the shops since long. The Gram Panchayat Ghanaur twice unsuccessfully tried to evict him from this land by resort to the civil suits. Thereafter respondent No. 3, Collector Rajpura initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, and issued notice Exhibit P.4 dated 11.6.1970. The petitioner submitted a reply thereto for dropping the proceedings initiated against him. The copy of the reply Annexure P.5. Since then, no further action was taken by the Collector (respondent No.3) in pursuance of notice Exhibit P.4. Proceedings against the petitioner were again initiated by respondent No.2 who issued order Annexure P.6 dated 26.9.1975 to the following effect :

"Memo No. E5/3176 dated 26.9.1975

Subject: Removal of unauthorised encorachment of PWD land.

It has been come to the notice of the undersigned that you encroached upon PWD land of about 30 sft unauthorised which is against the rules and laws. You are hereby directed to remove the same by 4.10.1975 at the latest positively, failing which it will be got removed departmentally at your risk and cost.

Sd/ Sub Divisional Engineer, Construction SubDivision No. IX, PWD (B&R), Patiala"

The petitioner claims that the respondentauthorities have no right to the property on which his shops have been constructed and have no right to evict him in any manner.

In the reply in the form of affidavit of Shri Chaman Lal Verma, Sub Divisional Engineer, Construction Sub Division No. 9, PWD (B&R), Patiala, it is stated that the residents of village Ghanaur somewhere in 196566 had donated this land to the Public Works Department, on which it intends to construct a road. It came to the notice of the Department four or five years back that the petitioner had made encroachment. Mutation about the transfer of ownership of this land has not been sanctioned and the matter has been taken up with the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala vide Annexure R.2.

I have gone through the petition, its annexures and the return and have also heared the learned counsel for the parties. The basis of the case of the respondents is that the land had been gifted to the PWD by the residents of village Ghanaur somewhere in 196566. According to Mr. K.K. Cuccria, learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has trespassed into the land in dispute by raising constructions thereon and the respondents have a right to evict him by having resort to the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Rrcovery) Act, 1959. The argument of Mr. Cuccria lacks legal basis. Admittedly, the land in dispute, is in possession of the petitioner where he has raised construction. The Government through the Public Works Department wants to dispossess the petitioner from the premises in order to construct a road thereon. There is no document of title in favour of the respondents. No document, vide which the residents of village Ghanaur had donated the Land in dispute to the Government, has been put on the record. It is all, stated to be a verbal transaction. No transfer can be made in favour of any person or authority except through a registered deed of transfer. Oral gift in 196566 of land is unconceivable. Mr. Cuccria was unable to show any title which vested in the Government to justify its action in seeking to evict the petitioner from the disputed premises. He has referred to letter Annexure R2 which is simply a request to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, for the sanction of the mutation. Viewed strictly in the technical sense, Deputy Commissioner has nothing to do with the sanction of the mutation. Mere initiation of a letter in the form of Annexure R.2 from some officer of the Public Works Department does not vest the title in the Government to treat the site in dispute its own property. Even if the petitioner is taken as a trespasser he has every right to hold the premises against everybody except the true owner. The Government not being its owner cannot have recourse to the method suggested in Annexure P.6.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted with costs. Costs Rs. 500/.