Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 111 (PNJ)

Darshan Rani v. State Of Punjab

2005-01-20

S.S.NIJJAR, SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure-10) and 21.12.2004 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. 2. It may be mentioned that vide order dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure P-10), the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridkot, exercising the powers of the Collector under the Punjab Public Premises of Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) held that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (Late Jaswant Rai Sethi) who was husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and after his death, the petitioners are in an unauthorised possession of an area measuring 535 Sq. Ft. on National Highway No. 15, comprised in Khsara No. 8643, kilometre No. 226 at Faridkot and consequently they have been ordered to be ejected from the same. Vide order dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure P-11), the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, exercising the powers of "Commissioner" upheld the afore-mentioned order and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the prayers made in this writ petition who has contended that- (i) the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (Late Jaswant Rai Sethi) had taken the land in dispute on lease from the Municipal Council, Faridkot, therefore, he was not in an unauthorised occupation thereof; (ii) Since, the land does not belong to the State Government and/or Union of India, no proceedings for eviction could be initiated by these respondents especially when the Civil Court, vide judgment dated 2.3.1995 (Annexure P-7) has already held that the land is owned by the Municipal Council; (iii) the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the ejectment order dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure P-10) has been adjudicated upon by an authority who is not the Prescribed Appellate Authority in terms of the Notifications dated 13.6.2000 and 4.12.2000 (Annexures P-12 and P-13 respectively) issued by the Government of Punjab). 4. We are, however, not impressed by any of these submissions for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 5. 4. We are, however, not impressed by any of these submissions for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 5. In the order dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure P-10), the Collector, Sub Division, Faridkot has categorically held that there is no private ownership over the land abutting the National Highway upon which encroachment has been made by the petitioners nor any such property vests in the Municipal Committee, Faridkot and that on all the sides, the ownership of the land vests in the Punjab Government. It has been further held that the "appellant has failed to prove that this land belongs to Municipal Council." The reliance placed by the petitioners upon the judgment dated 2.3.1985 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Court to contend that the land in dispute is owned by the Municipal Committee, Faridkot, is totally misconceived as the State of Punjab was not a party to that suit. Rather, when an application was moved by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Bathinda for being impleaded as a party, a statement was made on behalf of the predecessor-in-inter-est of the petitioners that no relief was being claimed against the said department or against the Punjab/Central Government and that the decision of the case will not at all be binding upon the Punjab PWD (B&R) Department (Northern Highway) or the Central Government. Thus, no benefit can be taken by the petitioners from the aforesaid judgment to disown the ownership of the State of Punjab over the land in dispute. 6. Similarly, we find no merit in the submission that the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, while exercising the powers of "Commissioner" was incompetent to decide the appeal against the order dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure P-10). The expression "Commissioner" has been defined in Section 2(aa) of the Act, which means the Divisional Commissioner or any other Officer appointed by the State Government under the Act. Vide Notification dated 13.6.2000 (Annexure P-12) the Government of Punjab has appointed "all the Deputy Commissioners" in the State of Punjab as "Commissioners" for performing the functions "under the Act." Vide subsequent notification dated 22.12.2000 (Annexure P-13) the Government of Punjab appointed Shri R. Venkat Ratnam, I.A.S., Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) and Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, as "Commissioner" for performing the functions of the "commissioners" under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as well as Sections 4, 5, 7 and 9 of Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1976. This notification has neither superseded nor does run contrary to the previous notification dated 13.6.2000 (Annexure P-12). It merely notifies one more authority (by name) that has been delegated the functions of "Commissioner" to be performed under the Act. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot continued to be "Commissioner" for performing the functions under the Act in terms of the notification dated 13.6.2000 and was, thus, competent to adjudicate the appeal filed by the petitioners under the Act. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.