Truck Operators Union vs State of Haryana

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Respondents No. 1 to 3 initiated proceedings Under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 against petitioners No. 3 and 3. The Collector found that the land measuring 19 Kanals 12 Marlas was in unauthorised occupation of the present petitioners. He ordered their eviction and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- for their illegally occupying the land. The two petitioners filed: an appeal. They did not challenge the finding that they were in unauthorised occupation or that they were liable to be evicted. They only claimed that the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was excessive. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated September 1,1999. Copies of the two orders have been produced as Annexures P. 16 and P. 17 with the writ petition. After the passing of these orders, the three petitioners viz. the Truck Operators Union and the, two individuals have filed this petition with the prayer that the orders be quashed and that a direction for the restoration of possession be given.

Notice of motion was issued. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted.

Mr. Pritam Saini, counsel for the petitioners has contended that the land in dispute belongs to the Ministry of Defence. Thus, the State Government had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for the eviction of the petitioners. Secondly, it has been contended that the first petitioner had not been impleaded as a party before the Collector. Thus, the initiation of proceedings and the ultimate order have been passed without hearing the party in possession.

The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents. It has been inter alia pointed out that petitioners No. 2 and 3 have even filed a civil suit for permanent injunction. This suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated February 24, 1999. The facts having been found by the Civil Court and the claim by the petitioners having been rejected, the writ petition is not maintainable. In any event, the petitioners have not disclosed the factum of the civil suit in the writ petition. They are guilty of suppressing relevant information and, thus, not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.

A copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Court has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the written statement. In paragraph 2, it has been recorded as under:

"It is alleged by plaintiffs that they are Truck Operators/Transporter and are in possession of the property in dispute which is situated at Shahabad (M) and abuts on the G.T. Road. They have constructed a boundary wall and two rooms and also have electric connection, telephone connection and water connection in the suit property. They have been in possession for the last more than 30 years and are using the same for parking the trucks. It is further alleged by plaintiffs that suit property is owned by Ministry of Defence and they have been regularly paying the damages for use and occupation to the said defence ministry. The defendants alongwith some police officials tried to dispossess them from the suit property on 21.1.1995 but their efforts were averted by them. Now the defendants want to dispossess them from the suit property, forcibly and illegally. Hence the present suit"

On the basis of this claim made by the petitioners, the Civil Court has framed various issues including the following three :-

(1) Whether plaintiffs and others are in possession of the property in dispute ? OPP

(2) Whether property in question is owned by Ministry of Defence ? OPP

(3) Whether defendants want to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly ? OPP

After examination of the evidence, the Civil Court found that "the Ministry of Defence is not the owner of the property in dispute." Thus, the issue was decided against the plaintiff-petitioners. On Issues No. 1 and 3, the court recorded a positive finding that the proceedings had been initiated before the competent authority under the Act and that in pursuance of the orders, the possession had been taken. Thus, even issues No. 1 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff-petitioners. The findings with regard to ownership etc. having already been recorded by the Civil Court, the petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate the matter.

Mr. Saini submits that the Truck Operators Union was not a party before the Civil Court. It is undoubtedly so. However, a perusal of the paragraph 2 as quoted above clearly shows that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 who were the plaintiffs had claimed to be Truck Operators and as such in possession of the land in dispute. It was claimed by them that they had been in possession for the last more than 30 years. It appears that the Union has been impleaded as a petitioner only to justify the filing of the writ petition. Otherwise, the claim on behalf of the petitioners has been that the land was in possession of Krishan Lal and Surinder Kumar.

Mr. Saini submits that the Union of India was not a party before the Civil Court. It is undoubtedly so. However, it also deserves notice that even in the present proceedings, the Union of India or the Defence Ministry have not been impleaded as parties. Thus, the writ petition has been filed only by adding a petitioner. Otherwise, the Ministry of Defence has still not been impleaded as a party in the present proceedings. The two issues are raised on behalf of the petitioners stand concluded by the judgment of the Civil Court. Thus, we find no justification for the petitioners to have approached this court through this petition.

Mr. Saini submits that the Estate Officer, Delhi Cantonment had allowed the petitioners to remain in occupation of the land on payment of damages. He has referred to the notice dated May 21, 1996 given by the Land Acquisition Collector and the order dated February 4, 1997 passed by the authority

We have examined both the documents, copies of which have been filed as Annexures P.4 and P.5 with the writ petition. The order does not give the particulars of the property. It is, thus, not possible to find out as to whether or not this property is the same as was the subject-matter of the civil suit. Still further, even the Ministry of Defence which is alleged to be the owner has not been impleaded as a party. Besides all this, counsel for the petitioners has not been able- to give any explanation for failure to disclose the fact that the civil suit had been filed and had beer dismissed by the Court vide its judgment dated February 24, 1999. His only plea is that this fact finds mention in the order of the Commissioner. The plea is wholly fallacious. It is true that in the order, the factum of filing of suit on September 26, 1996 has been noticed. However, this did not absolve the petitioners from the obligation of disclosing that they had filed a civil suit. The court had framed specific issues and recorded findings. These finding''s have a clear bearing on the claim as made in this writ petition. Despite that, the information regarding the suit has been with-held. We cannot compliment the petitioners on their conduct. They are guilty of suppressing the relevant information.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. Since the petitioners have with held relevant information they are directed to pay the costs to respondents No. 1 to 3. The costs are assessed at Rs. 5000/-.

Petition dismissed.