The expiration of a lease and the initiation of eviction proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973, can result in the loss of the right to retain possession of the land.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners pray that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the application dated October 11, 1993 and the order of eviction passed by the authority On July 29, 1994. Copies of these two documents have been placed on record as Annexure P-2 and P-3 respectively. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

2. The petitioners allege that their father-Gurdial Singh was given a piece of land measuring 2 Bighas at a yearly rent of Rs. 55/-. They had established a flour mill on this land. They have also set up other industrial units. In January 1988 the lease expired. The petitioners failed to vacate the land. The respondent-Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings for their eviction under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. This application was presented before the Authority on October 11, 1993. A copy has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. This application was allowed vide order dated July 29, 1994. A copy of the order is at Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order before the Commissioner. Vide order dated October 10, 1996, the appeal was partially allowed. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. The appellate authority had taken the view that the appellants may be allowed to retain land measuring 1 Bigha bearing Khasra No. 457. The petitioners were also allowed to cut the fruit trees standing on the land bearing Khasra No. 455. The petitioners did not challenge this order. However, the respondent-Gram Panchayat had approached this Court through C.W.P. No. 7121 of 1997. The petitioners were impleaded as respondents No. 2 and 3. They were served. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Bench observed that "the land in dispute belongs to Gram Panchayat ...... "The land was given to the present petitioners "on lease for a period of 20 years". It was further held that "their occupation over the said land after the expiry of the lease period will be treated as unauthorised within the meaning of 1973 Act. Therefore, the ld. Collector was right in holding that the respondents No. 2 and 3 are not entitled to retain occupation of the public premises. In its order, the appellate authority has not recorded a finding that the conclusion arrived at by the Collector suffered from an error of fact or error of law. He has also not recorded a finding that the premises in question do not fall within the definition of the expression public premises or that respondents No. 2 and 3 are entitled to retain possession as of right". Thus, it was held that the order of the appellate authority was illegal. Even the plea of equity sought to be raised on behalf of the present petitioners was rejected. Resultantly, the petition was allowed. The petitioners were permitted to retain the land for a period of 6 months subject to their paying the lease money and filing a written undertaking to hand over vacant possession on or before May 11, 1999. Mr. Walia states that the petitioners did not challenge this judgment before the Supreme Court. Thus, it has attained finality.

3. The petitioners have now approached this Court through the present writ petition with the prayer that the order of the Collector as well as the petition filed by the respondent-Gram Panchayat for their eviction be quashed. It is alleged that by operation of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, they have become the owners of the land.

4. The contention is totally untenable. Firstly, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent-Gram Panchayat stands finally concluded by the aforementioned judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 7121 of 1997. The decision having attained finality, the decided cause cannot be re-decided. The petition is wholly incompetent and deserves to be dismissed on that short ground. Secondly, the c