Dismissed

Joga Singh etc. v. Deputy Commissioner, Jdr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2012CWP/23403/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by Joga Singh and others challenging eviction orders dated 12.01.2010 and 10.03.2011 passed by government authorities under the Punjab Public Premises Land Act. The bench dismissed the petition finding no illegality or perversity in the orders, noting admissions of possession by petitioners and lack of objection by interested persons.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no merit found in challenging the eviction orders.

Joga Singh etc. Vs Deputy Commissioner, Jdr. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 23403 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No.23403 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 11, 2012.

¶5

Joga Singh and others.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar and others ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Paramjeet Singh, J.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 12.01.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No.2 – Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Phillaur, whereby the petitioners has been ordered to be evicted under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also for quashing of order dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.1 – Commissioner, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act against the petitioners before the Collector for eviction of the petitioners from the land measuring 65 kanals 16 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 2933, Khatauni No. 3108, Khasra No. 24/3 (2-4), 25 (8-0), 54//1 (8-0), 2 (7-12), 29//12/2/2 (3-18),

¶14

CWP No. 23403 of 2011

¶15

¶16

13/2 (1-6), 18/2 (2-12), 19/1/1 (3-18), 19/2/1 (3-18), 22/1/2 (3-1), 23/1 (10), situated in the revenue limits of Village Jandiala, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 claim themselves to be the owner in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of Will dated 22.05.1976 which was executed by Karam Singh son of Sunder Singh during his lifetime, the original owner of the land in dispute. After hearing both the parties, the Collector passed the eviction order dated 12.01.2010 (Annexure P/3). Against the said order, petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure P/5). Hence, this writ petition.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

¶18

Admittedly, the owner of the disputed land was Karam Singh, who during his lifetime executed a Will dated 22.05.1976 in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Although, the Will was not registered, but respondent Nos. 3 to 6 got mutation in their favour on the basis of the said Will. It is also an admitted fact that in the jamabandi for the year 2001-02, Civil Hospital, Jandiala is shown to be the owner of the disputed land. It is also admitted fact that on 18.05.2007, petitioner No.1 – Joga Singh himself admitted that he has vacated the possession over the land and handed over the possession to Civil Hospital. Some of the petitioners filed a civil suit which was dismissed by the the Civil Court and the appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar.

¶19

CWP No. 23403 of 2011

¶20

¶21

Balbir Singh (husband of petitioner no.2 and father of respondent No.3), Bhupinder Singh (respondent No.7) and Jasbir Singh (respondent No.9) have also stated that they have no objection if the disputed land is given to Civil Hospital. After appreciating the statements of the interested persons, the authorities came to the conclusion that Civil Hospital is the rightful owner and rightly accepted the application for eviction. It has been specifically mentioned in the order of the Collector that in order to prevent illegal possession over the land in future, a Committee has been formed consisting of S.M.O., Jandiala as convener, Naib Tehsildar and Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rurdka Kalan. The Committee has been called upon that no private person shall be allowed to have illegal possession of the disputed land. The authorities have also rejected the prayer of the respondent-State with regard to quantum of rent recoverable from the petitioners.

¶22

In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the authorities, which may warrant interference by this Court.

¶23

No merit.

¶24

Dismissed.

¶25

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge

¶26

January 11, 2012 vkd

Joga Singh etc. v. Deputy Commissioner, Jdr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joga Singh etc. v. Deputy Commissioner, Jdr.

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

Swaran Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Dalip Singh Vs Divisional Canal Officer & Ors.

Suraj Paul and Anr. Vs Pb. State Elecy. Board and Ors.

Harbhagwan Singh Vs Financial Comm & Anr.

Rajpal Vs State of Haryana etc.