In this writ petition, the High Court quashed an eviction order against Swaran Singh regarding presumed illegal occupation of defense land, dismissing the writ petition filed by his petition to quash orders of eviction.
The writ petition filed by Swaran Singh was dismissed.
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.
CWP No. 16698 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16698 of 2013
Date of decision : 17.11.2014
Swaran Singh
....Petitioner
V/s
Union of India & ors.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Bishnoi, Advocate for respondents.
RAJAN GUPTA J.
Petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders passed by Estate Officer and appellate authority, Annexures P6 & P8 respectively whereby his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. According to him, no demarcation was carried out in presence of the petitioner to arrive at the conclusion that premises occupied by him fell within the defence land. He was not associated with the procedure at any stage. According to him, petitioner is bona fide purchaser of the land as would be evident from the saledeed, Annexure P1. Both the orders are, thus vitiated and deserve to be quashed.
Learned counsel for respondents has, however, vehemently opposed the plea. According to him, proper procedure was followed by the authorities. Show cause notice was issued to
AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.18 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP No. 16698 of 2013
2
the petitioner before initiation of eviction proceedings. Demarcation was carried out by the officials of revenue department in the presence of all interested parties. Estate Officer afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Having come to the conclusion that petitioner was unauthorized occupation of defence land, he was ordered to be evicted. Order was upheld by the appellate authority.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It appears that certain persons were found to be in illegal occupation of the defence land and order dated 07.05.2007 was passed directing their eviction. Against said order, an appeal was preferred before Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. Appellate authority set-aside the order of eviction and remanded the case to Estate Officer for decision afresh after examining Field Kanungo and affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Matter was, thereafter taken up by the Estate Officer. Field Kanungo namely Gulzar appeared before the authority. He was cross-examined by the counsel for alleged encroachers. Field Kanungo was able to answer all the queries and explain the procedure adopted by him while carrying out demarcation. Estate Officer came to conclusion that certain persons including petitioner were in illegal occupation of defence land. Order was assailed before appellate authority i.e. Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. After considering rival contentions, he found no infirmity with the
AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.18 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP No. 16698 of 2013
3
order passed by the Estate Officer and observed as follows:-
“ 8. There is nothing on record to suggest that the demarcation was not conducted in accordance with the rules and instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. Thus the eviction order based on demarcation report of Field Kanungo who was cross-examined by the appellant, was rightly passed.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised no other contention except that demarcation was not carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed. I find no merit in this plea. Field Kanungo was cross-examined at length when he appeared before the Estate Officer. However, no defect could be found with the procedure adopted at the time of demarcation. There is nothing on record to show that any right is vested in the petitioner to be in possession of the premises which is part of defence land. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in concurrent findings of the authorities below. Dismissed.
November 17, 2014 Ajay
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.18 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether eviction orders passed by Estate Officer and appellate authority regarding illegal occupation of defence land should be quashed.
Swaran Singh
Union of India
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
