In a civil writ petition challenging eviction and recovery orders, the single judge found no illegality in the authorities' action of ejecting the petitioner from unauthorised possession of village land and recovering damages.
The civil writ petition was dismissed; the impugned eviction and recovery orders were upheld.
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 9175/2014
1
102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:03.03.2015.
Gian Singh
.............Petitioner
v.
District Collector-cum-Commissioner and others
.............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.KR Dhawan,Advocate for the petitioner.
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Petitioner has been ejected from agriculture land measuring 6K6M comprised in khasra no.158//M/8/2 (2K14M) and 13/2(3K12M) situated in Village Dharamkot Shamali, District Moga and also an order of recovery of damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the land @ 30,000/- per acre for the previous ten years alongwith penalty, has been ordered vide impugned order dated 31.10.2013 (P-4) passed by Collector (Sub-Division) Dharamkot under Sections 4,5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery Act)1973 (for short the PP Act). The said order dated 31.10.2013 (P-4) has been upheld vide order dated 31.1.2014 (P6) passed by the District Collector-cum-Commissioner while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under the PP Act.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court
finds no illegality in the impugned orders P-4 and P-6.
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.03.03 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
CWP 9175/2014
2
102
It is conceded fact that the land in dispute is shown to be as jumla mushtarka malkan whose management and control admittedly vests with the Panchayat and subsequently with the Municipal Council, Dharamkot on inclusion of the land of the Gram Panchayat in the Municipal Council. It is also not in dispute that in the jamabandi for the year 1982-83, produced on record by the petitioner in the eviction proceedings he is shown to be in unauthorised possession of the land in dispute since there is no entry under the column of rent. It is also stated before the Court that the petitioner had purchased certain land from a proprietor of the village including his share in the jumla mushtarka malkan in the year 1978. It is thus asserted that he was put in possession by the proprietors after the sale in the year 1978. It is thus clear that the petitioner is not even the proprietor of the Village. Be that as it may, status of the petitioner continued to be unauthorised and therefore the action of the authorities under the PP Act was competent and proper. Even the rate of damages to be recovered has not been shown to be arbitrary in any manner.
Dismissed.
03.03.2015. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.03.03 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders ejecting the petitioner from agricultural land and recovering damages were illegal.
Whether the petitioner's possession of the disputed land was authorised despite his claim of purchase.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gian Singh
District Collector-cum-Commissioner
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
