Allowed

Prem Lata v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Mar 2024CWP/1743/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of eviction orders due to lack of valid notice service. Court found notices affixed without clear address details and upheld claim of natural justice violation, quashing orders and remanding case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and set aside. Case remanded to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohru for expedited decision within six weeks.

Prem Lata Vs State of Hp and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1743 of 2024 Decided on 07.03.2024

¶2

_____________________ Prem Lata	___________________	___________________ Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.		Respondents
____________________ Coram:	___________________	__________________

¶3

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

For the petitioner	:	Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents ____________________	: ____	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _________________________________

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶6

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure P-5), passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Section 9 of Public Premises Act (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, laying therein challenge to order dated 22.12.2022, passed by Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Rohru, District Shimla in Case No.168 of 2021 , titled as State of H.P. vs. Prem Lata , whereby petitioner was ordered to

¶7

be evicted from the Government land being encroacher, the petitioner has

¶8

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

¶10

approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following substantive relief:-

¶11

“That by means of writ of certiorari impugned order dated 9.11.2023, Annexure P-5, passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 22.12.2022, Annexure P-3, as passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (C ) Rohroo, may kindly be quashed ad set aside and the proceedings initiated under Sections 5 & 7 of the H.P.Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, may kindly be dismissed.”

¶12

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted

¶13

in the present petition and further canvassed by Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is that before initiating proceedings under Sections 5 & 7 of Himachal Pradesh Public Premises Act, no proper notice was issued to the petitioner, as a result whereof, ex pate order thereby ordering eviction was passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohru, District Shimla, on 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-3).

¶14

While making this Court peruse the aforesaid order, Mr. Verma, argued that notice to the petitioner was issued on wrong address and as such, she was unable to put in appearance While making this Court peruse the address given in the memo of parties in the impugned order as well as notice issued to her in those proceedings, Mr. Verma, submits that neither House Number nor name of any house or locality if

¶15

¶16

any, ever came to be mentioned in the address, as a result thereof, notice actually issued by Court was not served upon the petitioner.

¶17

Having perused details of the address given in the memo as well as notice served upon the petitioner, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner because addresses given in both the aforesaid documents are not complete. Similarly, this Court finds that affixation on the given address was also not valid for the reason that there is no mention of house or locality on which notice of affixation otherwise could be affixed. Though, on the aforesaid grounds, as have been taken in the instant petition, petitioner filed appeal under Section 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premise Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, but even Appellate Authority failed to take note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter and proceeded to decide the appeal on its own merit.

¶18

While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General specifically invited the attention of this Court to notice issued vide order dated 30.12.2021 in the eviction proceedings passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohru, Shimla and vehemently argued that the report given in the aforesaid document clearly reveals that after affixation of the notice, telephonic information was given to the petitioner with regard to pendency

¶19

¶20

of the case, but yet she failed to put in appearance. However, having perused the aforesaid document, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid submission made by learned Additional Advocate General for two reasons: firstly , once there was no mention of house and locality in which the petitioner was living, it is not understood on which house or locality, notice was affixed and; secondly , though there is mention that information was given telephonically with regard to pendency of the case, but report given by the Process Server on the notice nowhere suggests that notice was affixed in the presence of some local witnesses and there is no mention of telephone number, on which allegedly information was given to the petitioner.

¶21

In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that entire proceedings were conducted against the petitioner without there being any notice to her and as such, proceedings conducted in violation of principle of natural justice, otherwise, are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶22

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 22.12.2022, passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Rohroo and 09.11.2023, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, are quashed and set aside and the case is

¶23

¶24

remanded back to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Rohroo with a direction to decide the same, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today to avoid further delay. Petitioner as well as respondents are directed to remain present before the concerned authority on 19.03.2024, enabling it to do the needful well within the stipulated time. Needless to say, parties to lis would render all required assistance to the authority below, enabling it to decide the same well within the stipulated time, which in no circumstances shall be enlarged.

¶25

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, also also the pending application(s), if any.

¶26

7^th March, 2024 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (reena) Judge

Prem Lata v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Lata v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S Shivalik Packaging Industries Vs Hpsebl and Others

M/S Akhil Enterprises Vs Hpsebl and Others

Muskan Katoch Vs Ch. Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and Another

Parth Mehta Vs State of Hp and Others

Jasvir Singh Hans Vs State of Hp and Ors.