Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1161 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. Panchayat Samiti Batala

2015-06-30

P.B.BAJANTHRI, SURYA KANT

body2015
JUDGMENT : Surya Kant, J. This letters patent appeal impugns the order dated 02.06.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge set-aside the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. Learned Single Judge has further directed the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur to get the premises vacated forthwith and submit a report within one month. Cost of Rs. 5.0 lacs has also been imposed on the appellant, with a further direction to initiate disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the delinquent officials and individuals who apparently connived with the appellant detrimental to the interest of the Panchayat Samiti. 2. The facts may be noticed briefly. 3. The Panchayst Samiti, Batala, let out the plot in question to appellant on payment of Rs. 50/- per month, on 16.04.1977. The appellant defaulted in payment from the very next month, i.e., 16.05.1977 and was declared unauthorized occupant. An application for his eviction and recovery of damages was filed under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Collector accepted the plea of Panchayat Samiti vide order dated 04.02.1994 and directed the appellant's eviction besides imposing the damages of Rs. 1,80,000/-. 4. It may also be mentioned that the appellant appeared in the above-stated eviction proceedings, filed his reply but thereafter absented. Consequently, ex-parte proceedings were held. 5. No sooner the eviction order dated 04.02.1994 was passed, the appellant moved an application to set-aside the exparte proceedings. His application was dismissed in default. Meanwhile, he availed parallel remedy and filed an appeal against the order dated 04.02.1994 and got interim stay against eviction. During the pendency of appeal, the appellant's application to set-aside the ex-parte order dated 04.02.1994 was allowed on 21.04.1994. He then withdrew the appeal on 26.07.1995. 6. Then comes the stage where the Executive Officer of Panchayat Samiti is said to have entered into a 'compromise' with the appellant on 13.02.1997. An official of the Panchayat Samiti appeared before the Collector and acknowledged the compromise as a result of which the case was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.10.1998. 7. Hardly within 10 days, the Panchayat Samiti moved application on 09.11.1998 for the recall of order dated 28.10.1998 as according to it, no compromise was ever entered into with the appellant. An official of the Panchayat Samiti appeared before the Collector and acknowledged the compromise as a result of which the case was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.10.1998. 7. Hardly within 10 days, the Panchayat Samiti moved application on 09.11.1998 for the recall of order dated 28.10.1998 as according to it, no compromise was ever entered into with the appellant. It was categorically averred that the so called compromise was null and void, forged and fabricated. 8. The aforesaid application of Panchayat Samiti remained pending till it was dismissed in default on 03.10.2003. The restoration application dated 05.11.2003 was finally allowed on 29.10.2008. The proceedings were thus again restored. 9. The appellant, however, again started adopting delaying tactics and remained absent from the Court of Collector who vide order dated 03.03.2010 allowed the application of Panchayat Samiti; set-aside the so-called compromise and directed initiation of proceedings under the Act. 10. The appellant challenged the above-stated order before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, who in exercise of the powers of Appellate Authority under the Act, vide order dated 20.08.2010 accepted the appeal and set-aside the order of the Collector on the ground that the appropriate remedy for the Panchayat Samiti was to approach the Civil Court. 11. The aggrieved Panchayat Samiti came to this Court and the learned Single Judge vide order under appeal has allowed its writ petition with costs of Rs. 5.0 lacs. 12. The aggrieved appellant is before us. 13. We have heard Mr.Arun Jain, learned Senior counsel for the appellant at some considerable length and gone through the record. 14. Two-fold contentions have been raised, namely, (i) there was no remedy for the Panchayat Samiti under the Act except to approach the Civil Court and seek a declaration of nullity of the 'compromise' entered into between the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti and the appellant and (ii) the delay is not attributable to the appellant alone, hence imposition of heavy cost of Rs. 5.0 lacs by the learned Single Judge is unjustified. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to both the submissions but are unable to agree with the same. We say so for the reasons that (i) admittedly no resolution was ever passed by the Panchayat Samiti for entering into any compromise with the appellant. 5.0 lacs by the learned Single Judge is unjustified. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to both the submissions but are unable to agree with the same. We say so for the reasons that (i) admittedly no resolution was ever passed by the Panchayat Samiti for entering into any compromise with the appellant. In the absence of such a resolution, the Executive Officer could not have on his own entered into the compromise; (ii) it is not the appellant's case that Executive officer was delegated any power to enter into compromise by any other Superior Authority; (iii) the then Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti, namely, Malkiat Singh was a man of doubtful integrity and a dubious character. He was dismissed from service on 11.03.2003 for securing public employment through fake and bogus certificate. There was thus a possibility of quid-pro-quo behind execution of the compromise which was totally detrimental to the interest of the public institution, namely, the Panchayat Samiti. 16. There could be no reason for the Panchayat Samiti or a Superior Authority to compromise with a person who was admittedly in default in payment of rent from the very next month of tenancy and was enjoying the public property without incurring any liability towards rent, user charges or mesne profits. 17. The question of relegating the Panchayat Samiti to civil court to prove that the compromise was a fraudulent transaction could never arise as the onus was on the appellant to prove that the Executive Officer was competent and duly authorized and had rightly settled the dispute. The order passed by the Commissioner relegating the Panchayat Samiti to the alternative remedy of civil court, when such jurisdiction is expressly barred under the Act, was totally unwarranted and an indirect attempt to help the appellant. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the first contention. 19. As regard to imposition of costs of Rs. 5.0 lacs, it may be seen that the Collector had assessed the damages to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- way back in the year 1994. Thereafter, the appellant manipulated to delay the proceedings at different levels, as it appears from the facts noticed above. The appellant absented from the proceedings on two occasions and thereafter sought restoration. Such a delay is attributable to him alone and not the authorities. 1,80,000/- way back in the year 1994. Thereafter, the appellant manipulated to delay the proceedings at different levels, as it appears from the facts noticed above. The appellant absented from the proceedings on two occasions and thereafter sought restoration. Such a delay is attributable to him alone and not the authorities. He continued to enjoy the property for all these 38 years without paying a single penny towards rent etc. The damages of Rs. 1,80,000/- assessed in the year 1994 ought to be justifiably increased in the year 2015. Thus, no case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. 20. Dismissed.