JUDGMENT

Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) - Challenge in this intra Court appeal is to the judgment and order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the notice issued to him by the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Jhajjar, dated 27.04.2011 (Annexure P-7), order dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Collector, Jhajjar, allowing the application for eviction under Section 3, 5, 5-A and 11 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 1972Act') preferred by the Municipal Committee, Jhajjar, ordering eviction of the appellant and order dated 29.06.2017 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, dismissing his appeal, stands dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has asserted that the orders of eviction passed by the Collector, Jhajjar, as well as the Appellate Authority are based upon the demarcation report dated 22.03.2011, which was prepared ex parte and on the verbal order of the Tehsildar without associating the appellant. During the hearing of the petition for eviction of the appellant, he had placed on record another demarcation report dated 06.05.2011, which was obtained on the orders of the concerned Tehsildar. His contention is that although as per the initial demarcation report dated 22.03.2011, encroachment was found at the hands of the appellant, but in the subsequent report, no encroachment on his part has been found and he has been said to be in possession of the Waqf Board land, which is on lease with him. Assertion has, thus, been made for setting aside the orders passed by the Collector, Jhajjar as well as the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak.

3. On a question being asked by the Writ Court as to why there has been delay of almost five years in approaching the Court in challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court, which is dated 29.06.2017 and the writ has been filed on 21.03.2022, explanation put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant was that an execution petition was preferred by the Municipal Committee, Jhajjar, on 31.08.2017, in which the appellant had filed his objections. During the pendency of the objections, which were based upon the demarcation report, the Executing Authority had proceeded to issue warrants of possession and it is, at this stage, the appellant had filed the writ petition. He, on this basis, contends that the Writ Court had failed to appreciate that the explanation, which has been given by the appellant, was fully justified and therefore, should have entertained the writ petition instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay and laches. Counsel for the appellant asserts that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot sustain as the Court had failed to appreciate that there were conflicting demarcation reports and without getting a fresh demarcation report, which has indeed been ordered by the Collector, the said authority instead of getting the same, has proceeded to order of eviction of the appellant, which is not sustainable.

4. His further contention is that the eviction order could not have been passed by the authority on the basis of an earlier demarcation report which is ex parte and therefore, the said order of eviction is not sustainable. To the question of delay, only explanation which has been put forth is that an order, which is illegal, can be challenged at any stage and delay alone cannot be a ground for rejecting the writ petition especially when the explanation has been given that the orders of taking possession have been passed without deciding the objections of the appellant to the execution petition.

5. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Manohar (2005) 2 SCC 126 and Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others (2013)