1. Forcible demolition of structures and ejectment from land during pendency of proceedings under the Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 527
2000(6) Supreme 547
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
State of Haryana & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Mohinder Pal & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5175 of 1993
Decided on 8-3-2000
The government cannot forcibly dispossess persons from property without following the due process of law, regardless of the parties' title. Even the State must act in accordance with the law to maintain the rule of law and cannot take the law into its own hands.
Headnote:Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972-Unlawful demolition of khokhas-Compensation for-Pending applications under Sections 4, 5 and 7 Government demolishing khokhas-High Court holding that Government could not take law into its hands but should have followed procedure prescribed by law awarding damage and costs-Respondent was admittedly in possession-Forcible eviction without following due course of law illegal-High Court s order warrants no interference. (Para 1)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether relief for forcible dispossession can be granted in the absence of material evidence regarding the title of the party in possession. (Para 1 )
3. Forcible ejectment of parties in admitted possession without recourse to due process of law is contrary to the rule of law, regardless of the party's title. (Para 1 )
4. The Government cannot take the law into its own hands to dispossess persons; ejectment must be carried out through the due process prescribed by law. (Para 1 )
5. Appeals dismissed and the order of the High Court maintained. (Para 2 )
6. Can the Government forcibly dispossess a person from a property without following legal procedure?
No, the Government cannot take the law into its own hands. Even when seeking to eject a party, it must follow the due process prescribed by law, as forcible dispossession is contrary to the rule of law. (Para 1 )
7. Is the determination of title necessary to decide whether a party was forcibly and illegally dispossessed?
No, if it is admitted that the party was in possession of the property, the question of examining title does not arise when determining if the ejectment was conducted without due process of law. (Para 1 )
ORDER
This appeal is directed against the order made by the High Court in Writ Petition which was filed by the Respondents complaining that the Appellants have demolished the khokhas and other structures but on by them. Two applications were filed under Sections 4 , 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. During the pendency of those proceedings the Appellants took steps to eject the Respondents from the land in question and demolished the khokhas constructed by them. The High Court proceeded on the basis that even Government cannot take law into its hands while dispossessing the Petitioners but should have followed the due procedure prescribed by law and not doing so is contrary to rule of law and consequently allowed the Writ Petition by awarding damages to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- by way of costs. However, while disposing of the Writ Petition, the High Court took care to protect the interest of the Appellants to the extent of giving an opportunity to revive their application filed earlier or to file a fresh application and withdrawal of the earlier application will not come in their way. Learned Counsel for the Appellants very vehemently submitted that in the absence of any material as to the title of the Respondents in respect of the property in question the High Court could not have granted relief in the manner it has been made. It is also pointed out that there are several other strong reasons for the Respondents to have acted in the manner they did. Question of examining the title of the parties does not arise at all as admittedly Respondents were in possession of the property in question and put up structures thereon. On that admitted position High Court took the view that ejectment of the Respondents forcibly without due recourse of law was not in due process. No exception can be taken to that view at all. In fact, this view is consistent with what has been stated by this Court in State of U.P. v. Maharaja v. Dharmander Prasad Singh etc.1. Whatever may be the reasons the Appellant had, they should have acted in accordance with law.
2. In the circumstances, we maintain the order made by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.
(C.R.) Appeals dismissed.
****************
