Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 164 (PNJ)

Hargobind v. Revenue Commissioner, Gurgaon

2009-01-21

AJAI LAMBA

body2009
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. CM No. 1132 of 2009 Application is allowed. Copy of order dated 28.4.2005 is taken on record as Annexure P-8. CWP No. 8464 of 2007 This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in challenge to orders dated 29.11.2004 and 29.11.2006, Annexures P-4 and P-7 respectively, passed under the provisions of Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short, `the Act). 2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was a lessee under the Municipal Committee, Narnaul. The Municipal Committee sold the property to one Kailash Chand vide registered sale deed dated 28.2.1994. 3. On 27.1.2003, an application was moved by the Municipal Committee, Narnaul while invoking the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act. The petitioner filed a reply challenging the jurisdiction of the Municipal Committee as the Committee was not the owner of the property at issue. In the order of eviction passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Narnaul on 29.11.2004, Annexure P-4, it stands admitted that ownership of the property is not that of the Municipal Committee. The issue whether the Municipal Committee could initiate proceedings in regard to the property not in its ownership, has not been considered specifically. 4. It seems that the petitioner brought an appeal which, however, has been dismissed vide Order dated 29.11.2006, Annexure P-7. The issue of jurisdiction as noticed above, has not been considered even by the appellate authority. 5. On a pointed query of the Court, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to respond as to under what procedure and law, the Municipal Committee could invoke the provisions of the Act so as to dispossess the petitioner. Public premises have been defined under Section 2(e) of the Act which reads as under :- "2(e) "Public premises" means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the State Government, or requisitioned by the competent authority under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953, and includes an premises belonging to any [Local authority or District Soldier, Sailors and Airmens Board] [or any university established by law] [or any Corporation or Board owned or controlled by the State Government]." Relevant provisions of Section 5 of the Act are also required to be considered, which read as under :- "5. Eviction of unauthorised persons - (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the Collector may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises or of the estate in which the public premises are situate. (2) If any person refused or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days of the date of its publication under sub-section (1), the Collector or any other officer duly authorised by him in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary." On consideration of the issue, I find that the Municipal Committee could invoke the provisions of the Act only in regard to the "public premises" as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and seek eviction under Section 5 of the Act. It being the admitted position that the property was sold way back in the year 1994, the Municipal Committee had no jurisdiction or legal authority to invoke the provisions of the Act, in regard to the property at issue which did not fall within the purview of definition of Public Premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. The action of the respondent in invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Act in regard to a property that was not "Public Premises" is arbitrary, unreasonable, injudicious and without jurisdiction. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 29.11.2004 and 29.11.2006, Annexures P-4 and P-7, respectively, are hereby quashed. No costs.