Back
SUDHIR MITTAL
Avtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral) - One Kehar Singh was the original owner of the land in dispute.
2. He died on 03.03.1987, childless, as a bachelor and intestate. Since there was no successor to his property, the State of Haryana filed a suit for declaration of its title in the year 1988, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.1998. The father of the petitioner was a party in that suit as allegedly he had come into possession in the year 1989. He had claimed title to the suit property but his claim was rejected. Thereafter, mutation was entered in favour of the State in the year 2007, and consequently, the petitioner filed a civil suit in the same year seeking a declaration that decree dated 23.02.1998, was not binding upon his rights. Vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016, the suit was partly decreed. It was held that judgment and decree aforementioned was not binding upon his rights as he was not a party thereto and that he could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. The appeal filed by the State of Haryana was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.2018. Thereafter, a petition under the Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recove
Unauthorized possession of public premises as defined by the Act constitutes grounds for eviction under the Haryana Public Premises Land Act, 1972.
Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act cannot resolve bona fide title disputes, which must be adjudicated in a civil court, ensuring respect for legal authority and due process.
Unauthorized occupation of public premises does not confer legal rights; eviction proceedings must adhere to statutory requirements, and alleged violations of natural justice must be substantiated.
The main legal point established is that under the Haryana Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972, illegal possession of land without a valid lease or allotment can lead to eviction.
Tenancy rights under a Will cannot override specific contractual terms prohibiting assignment without consent, rendering unauthorized occupation invalid under the Public Premises Act.
The jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act does not require the provision of reasons, and the pendency of a civil suit does not affect the authority's jurisdict....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
