The limitation period for recovery of damages for unauthorized occupation of public land under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, is 30 years under Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

Nanak Chand Khichi, J.

1. In this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the orders Annexures P.3 and P.5 and for declaring the proceedings Under Section 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 as being barred by time.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent-State filed an application Under Section 1 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 9190.00 on the allegation of unauthorised use and occupation of the agricultural land comprised in Khasra No. 256(6-5), 260(6-5), 269(6-5) and 270(3-3), situated in the revenue estate of village Balaspur, Tehsil and District Patiala. A notice (Ann.P.1) Under Section 7 of the Act was issued to the petitioner in the year 1984 requiring him to pay the damages from the year 1969 to 1975. In reply thereof, the petitioner pleaded that the claim of the respondent-State was barred by time and further in para 3 of the written reply, the claim was categorically denied. Para 3 of the written reply submitted by the petitioner reads as under :-

"3. That the respondent did not cultivate the land mentioned in the notice during the year 1969 to 1975, nor he is in possession of any public premises. He is not liable to pay the amount claimed."

After hearing both the parties, the application of the State was accepted and the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 9190/- vide order dated 25.3,1985 by the Collector, Patiala Sub Division, Patiala, Aggrieved by this order the petitioner went in appeal before the learned Commissioner, Patiala, who vide order and 2.9.1985, accepted the appeal and remanded the case for a fresh decision by making assessment of damages in accordance with Rule 7 of the Act ibid. After remand fresh evidence was taken on record and the learned Collector vide order dated 31.7.1987 (Ann. P.3), directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 16913-40 paise to the State as damages on account of use and occupation of the land. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala by way of an appeal who vide order dated 20.1.1988. (Ann. P.5) dismissed the same.

3. In the written statement the respondent-State has pleaded that the petitioner remained in occupation of the Government land in question from the year 1969 to 1975 and as such, he is liable to pay the damages. According to the respondents, the impugned orders are valid having been passed after considering every aspect of the case.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference by this Court in the impugned orders in writ jurisiction, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

5. In the first instance Shri Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not proved to be in possession of the land in qnestion and as such, he was not liable to pay any damages. I am afraid this question being a question of fact cant be agitated in writ proceedings. After examining the record, the Courts below recorded a finding that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession for the period 1969 to 1975 and as such, was liable to pay the damages for use and occupation of the same.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that in the instant case though the petitioner is disputing the very liability to pay the damages, if any, are being claimed for the period 1969 to 1975 and the proceedings Under Section 7 of the Act were initiated in the year 1984 i.e. much beyond three years which is the limitation provided for recovering any amount under the general law of limitation i.e. Under Section 113 of the Indian Limitation Act. According to him, the claim of the respondent-State was barred by time and the amount in question wa