Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 673 (HP)

Naresh Chhabra v. Union of India

2016-05-04

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, Judge This petition is instituted against the judgment dated 26.11.2015 rendered by the District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 13-S/14 of 2015. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Assistant Engineer-1, CPWD, SCSD- 1, CPWD, Shimla instituted a petition against the petitioner under section 5 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The main ground taken in the petition was that the petitioner has encroached upon the CPWD land comprised in Khasra No. 1265 and 1266 total area measuring 55.82 square meters situated at Silwan Hall, Longwood, Shimla as per Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 in the Court of Estate Officer, C.P.W.D., Shimla (Exercising the powers of Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation Act, 1971) vide case No. GC/2011/SCD- 1/1752. Notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why eviction order be not passed for unauthorized occupation of the land in dispute. According to the petitioner, notice issued to him was not in accordance with law. He was in possession of Khasra Nos. 1265 and 1266 for a very long period. He has become owner of the same by way of adverse possession. He has obtained electricity, water and sanitary connections. Rejoinder was filed by the respondent. The Estate Officer, CPWD, Shimla has passed the eviction order on 8.4.2015. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2015 preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Shimla. It was dismissed by him on 26.11.2015. Notice has been issued to the petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of ten days vide notice dated 2.1.2016. Hence, the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. According to the documents Ex.PW-2/A, PW- 2/B and PW-2/C, i.e. Jamabandis and tatitma, the land is owned by the Central Government. Petitioner has constructed a house over the same. 5. PW-1 Sukh Chain Singh has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex./PW-1/A. PW-2 Jai Kishan Sharma has deposed that as per the revenue record land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 157/194 min, Khasra Nos. 1265 and 1266 kitas 2 measruing 55-82 square meters was in the ownership of CWPD. He has proved copy of Jamabandi Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/B and copy of Aks Sajra Kistwar Ex.PW-2/C. 6. 1265 and 1266 kitas 2 measruing 55-82 square meters was in the ownership of CWPD. He has proved copy of Jamabandi Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/B and copy of Aks Sajra Kistwar Ex.PW-2/C. 6. PW-3 Bal Kishan Verma has deposed that he remained posted as Field Kanungo between December, 2009 to October, 2014. He has carried out demarcation of the disputed land as per revenue record. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Sat Pal, Deepak and Smt. Chanderkanta were present on the spot. The same was confirmed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade on 25.7.2014. 7. RW-3 Ram Kishan Thakur has deposed that according to the record, water connection has been installed in quarter No.3. 8. There is overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land. He has raised unauthorized construction. The land was demarcated by PW-3 Bal Kishan Verma. The demarcation report was confirmed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade on 15.7.2014. The demarcation report is strictly in accordance with law. Petitioner has raised the plea of adverse possession, but has not led any tangible evidence to prove the ingredients of adverse possession. The suit premises are public premises. Notice issued to the petitioner under section 4 (1) of the Act is strictly in accordance with law. It is specifically mentioned in the notice that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the Government land. Reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner. The orders passed by both the authorities below are self-speaking. Thus, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the same. 9. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. It shall be opening to the respondent to execute the judgment dated 26.11.2015 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 13-S/14 of 2015. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.