Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 466 (PNJ)

Rattan Chand v. State Of Punjab

2006-02-15

J.S.NARANG

body2006
Judgment J.S.Narang, J. 1. It has been averred that the petitioners were in possession of the property which became the subject matter for seeking eviction by the Improvement Trust, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust"). The Trust initiated the process of evicting the petitioners and that the petitioners filed a civil suit in the civil Court at Amritsar, which was finally decreed vide judgment and decree dated September 16, 1981. The permanent injunction was granted that the petitioners be not dispossessed from the property in dispute except in due course of law. 2. The Trust initiated proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Despite service the petitioners did not appear and an ex parte order to evict the petitioners had been passed by the competent authority vide order dated July 26, 1982. The petitioners, being aggrieved of the ex parte order, filed C.W.P. No. 1540 of 1983 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners for filing an appeal permissible under Law. Resultantly, an appeal No. 105 of 1983 had been filed before the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The appeal has been dismissed vide a detailed order dated 14.11.1983, copy Annexure P-3. The order of the Collector and that of the Commissioner, have been made the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 3. It has been categorically observed by the learned Commissioner that the appeal is patently and hopelessly time barred and therefore, merits dismissal. It has been noted that the order of the Collector is dated July 26, 1982 and the appeal had been filed on April 12, 1983. A copy of the order had been applied on February 8, 1983 and delivery thereof was taken on February 14, 1983, the copy was applied for after more than six months and after taking delivery of the copy, the appeal has been filed after about two months. It has also been noticed that the petitioners had been given due notice but despite service of the notice they did not appear before the learned Collector and, therefore, suffered ex parte proceedings and resultantly the ex parte order. It has also been observed that no application for seeking condonation of delay nor any affidavit had been filed specifically explaining the long and inordinate delay. It has also been observed that no application for seeking condonation of delay nor any affidavit had been filed specifically explaining the long and inordinate delay. Only oral submission have been made that the petitioners had filed objections before the learned Collector and that an order dated January 11, 1983 had been passed by the Collector vide which the objections had been dismissed. It is obvious that instead of applying for the certified copy of the order of the Collector, the petitioners chose to file objections on January 11, 1983 which had been dismissed on that date and that copy of the order had been applied for thereafter on February 8, 1983. No explanation for such delay has been furnished. Thus, the cumulative delay has been taken as three months from the date of knowledge i.e. from January 11, 1983, the date of filing objections before the Collector. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners ought to have been heard on merit by the appellate authority and the principle of audi alteram partem should have been adhered to. It is further contended that the order of the learned Collector under the Act is illegal and is not sustainable. An order which is illegal and not sustainable need not be challenged. Thus, the question of limitation shall not arise. 5. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has argued that the appeal has been dismissed as time barred as the petitioners had not been able to explain the long and inordinate delay in filing the appeal. It is obvious that the petitioners were aware of the existence of the order as they had been duly served but despite service they did not put in appearance before the learned Collector and that the ex parte order had been earlier challenged by the petitioners by way of C.W.P. No. 1540 of 1983, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority. It is an miserable attempt to challenge the order of the learned Collector beyond the period of limitation and that too without filing an application for seeking condonation of delay supportable by an affidavit of the petitioners. It is an miserable attempt to challenge the order of the learned Collector beyond the period of limitation and that too without filing an application for seeking condonation of delay supportable by an affidavit of the petitioners. It is the settled law that no oral explanation can be accepted in regard to the delay, the expiry of which confers a legal right in favour of the party to the dispute. It is further contended that even now in the present petition the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority has not been explained. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the paper book as also the orders impugned before this Court. Admittedly, the petitioners had been served before the learned Collector pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Act. It is nowhere the case of the petitioners that they had not been duly served before the learned Collector as the petitioners have not contended anywhere in the petition that the petitioners had never ever been duly served in accordance with law. On the other hand the plea taken is that the then Minister, Local Bodies, Punjab had intervened and that the then Chairman of the Trust undertook not to dispossess the petitioners unless an alternative accommodation would be made available to them. Thus, the order under the Act should be taken as non est. The argument is wholly fallacious and deserves to be rejected. The factum of having been served before the learned Collector having not been disputed, it cannot be inferred that the order passed by the Collector is not just and fair. The petitioners have also not placed on record the grounds of appeal submitted before the learned Commissioner as to whether such plea had been taken and that the same had not been dealt with by the learned Commissioner. De hors this the learned Commissioner has dismissed the appeal on account of delay and laches as the petitioners have not been able to explain the long and inordinate delay as no application in support thereof had been filed. De hors this the learned Commissioner has dismissed the appeal on account of delay and laches as the petitioners have not been able to explain the long and inordinate delay as no application in support thereof had been filed. It is the settled law that the delay must be explained and even if no separate application has been filed, at least in the grounds of appeal the averment should have been made but no such act on the part of the petitioners has been substantiated in the grounds of the petition nor has been disclosed by way of placing on record the grounds of appeal submitted by the petitioners before the learned Commissioner. 7. In view of the above, I find no illegality and/or infirmity in the order of the learned Collector as also the order of learned Commissioner.