Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2182 (HP)

Rajinder Prashad v. State Of H. P.

2011-05-25

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners were issued notices under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan ordered the petitioners to vacate the land within one month from the date of passing of the order, failing which they were to be evicted by such force as was necessary. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. The same was dismissed by him on 17.8.2009. Hence, the present writ petitions. 3. Ms. Kiran Lata has strenuously argued that the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Collector, Solan under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act' for brevity sake) is not in conformity with law. According to her, no grounds have been given in the notices issued to the petitioners on 6.7.1996. According to her, section 4 of the Act is mandatory and is required to be followed in letter and spirit. In other words, her submission is that the provisions of section 4 have only been followed in form and not in substance. It was incumbent upon the Sub Divisional Collector to mention the grounds specifically and merely stating that the grounds have been mentioned below is not sufficient compliance of the letter and spirit of the Act. 4. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Pankaj Sharma have supported the orders dated 31.3.2004 and 17.8.2009. 5. In order to ascertain whether the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan are in conformity of law or not, the records were directed to be produced by the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan. He has produced the record and is also present in person. 6. The Court has perused the notices dated 6.7.1996 issued to the petitioners and similarly situate persons. Prima facie, these notices are not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of section 4 of the Act. It was incumbent upon the Collector to specify the grounds on which the orders of eviction were passed. 6. The Court has perused the notices dated 6.7.1996 issued to the petitioners and similarly situate persons. Prima facie, these notices are not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of section 4 of the Act. It was incumbent upon the Collector to specify the grounds on which the orders of eviction were passed. In the instant case, what is mentioned in the notices is that the grounds are given herein below, but in fact no grounds have been mentioned except that the petitioners are in occupation of the land and have constructed temporary sheds. The grounds of eviction were required to be specifically mentioned as stipulated under section 4 of the Act. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sub Divisional Collector, Solan has also conceded that the notices dated 6.7.1996 are not in conformity with section 4 of the Act. Thus, it is evident that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 4 of the Act. Consequently, orders dated 31.3.2004 and 17.8.2009 are also declared illegal. Petitioners have been prejudiced by the non-compliance of section 4 of the Act. It is a case where the principles of sublato fundamento cadit opus will be attracted. Meaning thereby in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others v. Ananta Saha and others, (2011) 5, SCC 142 have held that the principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. Their Lordships have held as under: "32. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls. 33. In Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243 , this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. (See also State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191 ; and Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3745 )." 7. (See also State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191 ; and Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3745 )." 7. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made here in above, the petitions are allowed. Annexures P-1 and P-2 dated 31.3.2004 and 17.8.2009, respectively are quashed and set aside. The Sub Divisional Collector, Solan is permitted to withdraw the notices and issue fresh notices to the petitioners strictly in accordance with law. The proceedings shall be completed by him within a period of six months from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.