Vishwa Mitter and another vs State of Punjab and others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The prayer of the respondents for eviction of the petitioners from the shop in question was allowed on 1.9.2008 under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act"). The petitioners claim that they are owners of the shop in question and were wrongly evicted therefrom. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed and the petitioners thereafter have approached this Court through the present writ petition. The petitioners have averred that Pandit Dogar Ram was the owner of the premises, which consisted of two shops at Banga District Nawashahar. Said Pandit Dogar Ram is stated to have purchased this premises in open auction in 1933 from District Board, Nawashahar. Father of petitioner No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in the property in the year 1949. The ejectment petition was filed against the father of petitioner No. 1 but was dismissed on 13.6.1982. Petitioner No. 1 became the tenant on the death of his father on 24.4.1982. The appeal filed by the landlord against the order, rejecting ejectment was also dismissed on 30.8.1986. Execution Second Appeal (ESA) No. 605 of 1987, which was filed on 3.6.1987 is pending before this Court. The petitioners claim to have bought this property by registered sale deeds dated 20.1.1989 and 25.2.1991. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a site plan for making certain changes in the property. Respondent No. 4 informed the petitioners about the sanction, which was given by the PWD Department and accordingly the petitioners made construction/changes, absolutely in conformity with the site plan.

Respondent No. 4 issued a notice to the petitioners on 10.4.2001 to vacate the premises in question as the same was stated to be a Government land. Petitioners state that no basis was intimated to the petitioners in support of this claim. The petitioners filed reply/objections claiming themselves to be the owners of the property. Ignoring the same, on 30.4.2002, respondent No. 4 directed the petitioners to vacate the premises in question within three days. The petitioners approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 11219 of 2002, which was disposed of on 23.7.2002. This Court stayed the dispossession of the petitioners till the decision of the reply/objections. The order of eviction, if passed, was to be kept in abeyance for one month to enable the petitioners to take recourse and to seek remedy against the same. Thereafter, notices were issued to various persons, including the petitioners and petition under Sections 4 to 7 of the Act was filed on 1.8.2002. This petition is allowed on 1.9.2008. The petitioners appealed against the same and also filed a revision, when the operation of the order was stayed till the decision of appeal. The appeal is finally dismissed on 19.12.2008, whereafter the petitioners are issued notice to demolish the shop, failing which the respondent-authority will do so. He has accordingly filed this writ petition against the said order.

Notice for eviction to the petitioners was primarily issued on the ground that they were in illegal/unauthorized possession of the land, which belongs to Punjab Government. This area is needed for widening and strengthening of the road and so the eviction of the petitioners was prayed for. The parties were given opportunities to lead evidence. The petitioners claimed exclusive possession over the disputed property on the ground that they had purchased it from Pandit Dogar Ram. The petitioners also made a reference to the site plan, which was approved by the Municipal Committee, Banga, when the petitioners had carried out some re-construction. As per the petitioners, the allegation of unauthorized occupation is now made after a lapse of so many years.

On the other hand, the respondent-State referred to the entries in the jamabandies to urge that the disputed property was in the ownership of the Punjab Government and it is part of Khasra No. 131, which is established from the record of demarcation reports dated 29.6.2002 and 31.7.2007. The property in dispute is situated in the red line (lal dora) of Banga Town. It was found that khasra numbers recorded in the field book sale deed are different and so it was held that entries in the jamabandi could not be over looked. As per the jamabandi, the disputed property comprised in Khasra No. 131 is in the ownership of Punjab State and part of Banga Phagwara road. The sale deed accordingly was termed as meaningless. The demarcation report also showed that the petitioners had encroached upon the portion of the road. The eviction of the petitioners accordingly was ordered.

Having been evicted vide order dated 22.11.2002, the petitioners have been able to stall their eviction for all these years, which has seriously effected the public purpose of widening the road. The Appellate Court had initially remanded the case on 20.7.2004 to the S.D.M., for re-deciding the same after affording opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence and for the demarcation of the land in the presence of parties. Even fresh demarcation was ordered and carried by Kanungo and Patwari on 31.7.2007 in the presence of parties. It was found that the petitioners had actually encroached upon the area. The petitioners were claiming title through their purchase from Pandit Dogar Ram but failed to produce any document that Dogar Ram had purchased this land from the District Board etc. The appeal was also dismissed. On the basis of these very contentions, the notice in the petition was issued and the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. The writ petition has thereafter remained pending before this Court. The petitioners had prayed for time to produce the documents showing that the land was purchased by Pandit Dogar Ram from the Rehabilitation Department. The State was also directed to disclose the breadth of the road situated in Khasra Nos. 131 and 131 min. The petitioners could only produce the jamabandies, Annexures P-24 and P-25, showing that the petitioners were the tenants, which did not answer the query posed and the requirement projected. The petitioners prayed for and was granted further time to show the title of Dogar Ram. In the meantime, the State had also filed an affidavit in response to the direction to disclose width of the road. The road in question was stated to be 110 feet wide whereas the demarcation report revealed that the road is 89 feet wide in front of the petitioners shop. The petitioners in turn relied upon the order passed by the Sub Divisional Engineer, allowing them to construct a building leaving 91 ft. and 11 inches road. The case was adjourned to resolve this ambiguity but thereafter was adjourned on number of occasions on the request of parties.

On 4.1.2012, State was asked to comply with the order, requiring them to resolve the ambiguity. The additional affidavit has now been filed to place on record the report of the Naib Tehsildar. The entry regarding width of the road showing to be 91ft. 11 inches was not found in the field book. Thus, the petitioners can not take any solace from the order passed by the Sub Divisional Engineer, granting them sanction to construct this shop, leaving road to the extent of 91ft. 11 inches. The order requiring the petitioners to show title of Pandit Dogar Ram apparently has been lost and forgotten for compliance and no such document is ever placed on record by the petitioners. The petitioners, thus, have not been able to fully establish their ownership over the disputed property. As per the reply filed, the petitioners are found to be in unauthorized possession over the property in dispute. It is also pointed out that the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioners are totally silent about khasra number of the property purchased. The property was held to be part of khasra number 131, which belongs to State of Punjab. The same is required by the Government to execute the project of widening, strengthening and raising the main Banga Phagwara road. Despite opportunities, the petitioners could not place on record any document to clear the doubts about their title, which is also highlighted in the reply. In the additional affidavit filed on 8.10.2010, it is specifically mentioned that as per the revenue record, the road is 110 feet wide but in front of the shop of the petitioners, road is 89 feet wide. From this, it is made out that the petitioners have encroached 21 feet x 31 feet land of the road, which is of the State. The demarcation has clearly shown the illegal and unauthorized possession of the petitioners. The writ petition is found lacking in merit. No reason or cause is made out to interfere in the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities directing eviction of the petitioners from the property in dispute. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.