The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed two writ petitions filed by a petitioner challenging an order of dispossession and recovery of damages. The court upheld the Deputy Commissioner's possession order despite the petitioner's statutory challenge, noting that earlier acquisition notifications were declared illegal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9102 OF 2006 :{ 1 }:
I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 05 , 2009
Sushil Kumar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. R. L. Batta, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P. C. Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.
Mr. S. C. Khunger, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.9102 of
2006 ( Sushil Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and others) and 12721 of 2006 ( Satwinder Singh Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and others) . The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.9102 of 2006.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9102 OF 2006 :{ 2 }:
The petitioner is in physical possession of plot No.13. Municipal Council, Malerkotla, filed an execution application for delivery of possession of this plot and recovery of sum of Rs.1,10,432/- as damages for use and occupation of the plot from 1.7.1992 to 31.3.2004. Collector rejected the prayer of respondent No.3, which was accordingly taken in appeal before Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The Commissioner accepted the appeal by holding that the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the property. The Municipal Council was accordingly held entitled to recover the use and occupation charges. The Commissioner also directed that the petitioner be dispossessed of the plot. While allowing the appeal, Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, in exercise of his powers as Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, found that the plot in question had in fact been given on lease to Mukat Ram but was subletted to the petitioner, for which he had no right to do so. It is in this background, the possession of the petitioner over the plot was found to be unauthorised. It was also found that petitioner, Sushil Kumar had not deposited the sum due within the time stipulated and accordingly his possession was also held unauthorised on this count.
Mr. R.L.Batta, appearing for the petitioner, would point out that the petitioner had prepared a draft for depositing the sum of Rs.1,09,656/- after the order passed by the Collector but the same was not accepted by the Estate Officer. Under the orders of the Court, he had deposited a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. Accordingly, while issuing notice of motion, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. The prayer is that the plot be re-allotted and in support of the plea, reference is made to the resolution approved by the Government for
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9102 OF 2006 :{ 3 }:
allotment of shops to some persons who have vacated the same and are ready to increase the rent. It is, thus, pleaded that the same principle be adopted in case of the petitioner as well.
In fact, this is a second round of litigation. The petitioner had earlier filed a Civil Writ Petition No.2143 of 2002 before this Court, which was dismissed on 30.1.2003. The finding was recorded to the effect that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of the property and had made an application for transferring the proprietary rights on the basis of the policy of the State Government on payment of 40% of the market value. The stand by the respondents therein was that the lease had expired by efflux of time and the property had been sub-letted to the petitioner without prior sanction of the Municipal Council. In this background, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:-
“We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to acquire the proprietary rights as the notification relied upon by the petitioner has been held to be illegal by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No.4511 of 2001 (Hari Miter and others Vs. State of Punjab and others), decided on 13.3.2002. The Division Bench has come to the conclusion that no instructions could be issued by the State of Punjab with regard to the sale of the property owned by the Municipal Council. It was held that the State Government cannot issue mandatory direction to the Municipalities to dispose of their properties de-hors the requirement of the revenue and that too without following the procedure of auction.”
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9102 OF 2006 :{ 4 }:
The petitioner can not also take benefit of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, Malerkotla, as the said resolution was found to be in contravention to the rules of the Government and accordingly Director-cum-Secretary, Local Government, in exercise of powers delegated to him under Section 236 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 had cancelled the abovesaid resolution of the Council on 6.10.2004. This order has otherwise not been challenged.
Mr.Gurcharan Dass, representing the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.12721 of 2006, in addition submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereas the power was with the Commissioner and there had been no delegation of powers to the Deputy Commissioner. I am not impressed with this line of submission made by the learned counsel. The order clearly reveals that the appellate order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner while exercising power of Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The powers of the Collector had in fact been exercised by Dr.Indu, P.C.S. and in this background the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order while exercising powers of a Divisional Commissioner. I see no infirmity in the impugned order on this count.
Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
March 05, 2009 khurmi
( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the power to pass the impugned appellate order exercising Divisional Commissioner powers.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh allotment of the disputed property based on earlier government resolutions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hari Miter and others Vs. State of Punjab and othersDistinguished¶26
C.W.P. No.4511 of 2001 (Hari Miter and others Vs. State of Punjab and others)
Unspecified (Current Petitioner)Referred¶25
Civil Writ Petition No.2143 of 2002
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sushil Kumar
Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
