The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following due process and the authority's power to initiate proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973.

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. 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