Sukhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent no. 3 whereby petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), as well as, order dated 29.02.2012 (Annexure P/8) passed by respondent no. 2 whereby appeal preferred by the father of the petitioner has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.4 � Municipal Council, Bhador through its Executive Officer filed an application under Sections 4 and 7(3) of the Act for the purpose of evicting the petitioner herein and getting the damages for use and occupation of the land before the Collector. It was pleaded in the application that Municipal Council was the owner of the property and this fact has also been mentioned in the judgment and decree dated 09.04.1981 and it has been held that the petitioner is not owner of the property. It was averred that the petitioner is in illegal possession. After considering the evidence on record, the Collector ordered the eviction of the petitioner along with damages to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- along with annual interest @ 18% vide order dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure P/6). Against that, two separate appeals were filed, one by Karnail Singh and the second by Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh (father of the petitioner) which have been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Barnala vide order dated 29.02.2010 (Annexure P/8). Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Municipal Council is not owner of the property in dispute. The petitioner is in possession of the land in question for many years. Learned counsel further contended that under the provisions of the Act, application filed by Municipal Council is not maintainable.

I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

The Collector after hearing the parties has recorded the following findings in the impugned order dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure P/6):-

After perusing the record brought on file and after hearing the arguments of Advocates, I reached on this conclusion that from Ex. P-10 property register it is clear that the petitioner is owner of disputed property. This fact also reveals from the order dated 09.04.1981 passed by Additional District Judge, Barnala (Ex. P-7), the respondent is not having any ownership rights pertaining to the disputed property. He has done only illegal encroachment over this land. The respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove his ownership possession. I am agree with the documents and proof as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, and is hereby declares that the respondent''s possession over this land is illegal and is hereby ordered to evict him immediately and the damages as demanded from the respondent to the tune of Rs. 18,000/-, the same is also decreed with the annual interest of 18%. It is hereby ordered that to affix the copy of order on the place of disputed land and respondent is hereby directed to vacate the disputed land within 30 days. In the event of not doing the needful, the further legal action will be proceeded by the petitioner....

In appeal, after hearing the parties, the Deputy Commissioner recorded the following findings in impugned order dated 29.02.2012 (Annexure P/8):-

After hearing the arguments of both the counsels and after perusing the record brought on case file, it has been found that the respondent party i.e. Municipal Council Bhador had filed case under the Public Premises and Land Eviction Act before the Collector Sub Divisional Barnala, but, the Government of Punjab, being appointing them as Administrator of Municipal Council Bhador, this case transferred to Collector cum Deputy Director Local Government, whereby the appeal is pending against the order dated 25.08.2010. As per suit from the east side of disputed property, there is house of Kishan Singh, west side is passage of general public, phirni, north side Gobind Ram and towards south side house of Kaka Singh is situated. As per Annexure P-12 produced by Municipal Council, there is decision of Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in contempt Court proceedings No. 921 of 1993, titled as Karnail Singh etc. vs. Sadhu Singh President Municipal Council, decided on 13.07.1994, in this contempt petition it was ordered to maintain status qua regarding possession. Annexure-13, RSA No. 1189 of 1981 titled as Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh versus Municipal Corporation, which was decided by the ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 09.04.1981. This judgment was against the modification of order dated 13.09.79 passed by the Sub Judge Second Class, Barnala, by which the Municipal Council Bhador restrained from interfering in the disputed property except to the due course of law. In this way, Hon''ble High Court vide its decision dated 02.05.2007 rejected the RSA. Ex. P-15 is resolution dated 27.07.2007 passed by the Municipal Council, wherein it has been mentioned about taking the possession by restoring the case in the Court of Collector. Ex. AW1/A is statement of Prem Kumar, Clerk. AW3/A is statement of Shri Hari Singh Bawa, President of Municipal Council. Ex. A1 is report of Shri Wailaiti Ram, by which it has been mentioned to get vacate the land of Qilla Mai Roop Kaur for the purpose of Water Works, which was approved by the Committee on 21.03.1977. Though Ex. A-2 resolution dated 21.03.1977 passed that Jarnail Singh and Karnail Singh took away gravel, Ex. A-3 notice Jarnail Singh, Karnail Singh u/s 156/173 is of Municipal Act, 1911, its service by way of affixing is Ex. P-4/1. As per the order of Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 09.04.1981, the disputed land is a Kotha. This appeal is CA 204 of 1981 titled as Municipal Council Bhador vs. Karnail Singh etc. This appeal was filed against the judgment dated 25.03.1977. The order passed in this appeal dated 09.04.1981, as per this order the order of Civil Court continued. Ex. A-10 is photocopy of property register, in which the vacant site entered as Qilla Maiya and in its argument, the disputed land mentioned as under the ownership of Municipal Council and this fact has been verified by the Ex-President of Municipal Council Hari Singh Bawa in his argument.

On behalf of respondent party, Jarnail Singh in his statement it has been admitted that the disputed land is measuring 200 x 300 feet, from its east side Kishan Singh''s house, west side Phirni General passage, north side house of Golu Ram and towards south side house of Kaka Singh and Jagir Singh. The respondent party during arguments also admitted that the gravel is from the tenure of their forefathers. Jarnail Singh also admitted during argument that the land of Qilla, Mai Roop is some other place, which is adjacent behind to their land. He admitted true the acceptance of notice of Municipal Council Bhador and said that after its the suit was filed in the Court. Ex. D-1 Civil Suit No. 120 of 1977, decided on 13.09.1979, in which Ex. P-16 is Inspector Local Bodies dated 01.03.1951, according to which the Qilla is State property, in this way Ex. P17 report of Tehsildar Phool is dated 16.05.1953, according to which Qilla Basant Kaur and other extra proprietors are entered into the town Committee as per the circular No. 42 of Local Self Government. As per the entry mark at page no. 83, the land adjacent to Kaka Singh, was given to Kaka Singh son of Ram Ditta Singh, by Narain Singh as donation (but there is no proof of thumb impression of Narain Singh available with him, that he has done so), signatures of other witnesses available. Ex. A-5 i.e. copy of civil suit No. 120 of 1977, decided on 13.09.1979, titled as Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh vs. Municipal Council Bhador, through this case Karnail Singh etc. had filed permanent injunction against Municipal Council Bhador. In the suit there is mentioning about 300 x 200 feet land. In Issue No. 1 framed by the court i.e. whether plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute?, while deciding this issue, the Civil court comments that plaintiff failed to produce any such evidence/proof by which his ownership could be proved, in this way he cannot be assumed as owner legally.

Both the authorities have considered the evidence on record and have recorded concurrent findings. Even the Civil Court has recorded a finding that petitioner can be evicted in accordance with law. The petitioner is in possession of the suit land unauthorisedly, he can be evicted under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show that the said findings are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-reading or mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record.

In view of above discussion, the present writ petition fails.

Dismissed in limine.