The absence of statutory notice under Section 4 of the 1971 Act renders eviction orders void ab initio.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 207 of 2017 Decided on : 05.09.2025 Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 03.01.2012, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Collector, in Case No. 1-PP-2005 as well as order dated 09.03.2017, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in Appeal No. 16/2012, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the premise in issue.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these proceedings are that in terms of the order passed by Sub-

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Divisional Officer (Civil), exercising the powers of Collector under H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1971 Act’), Eviction Petition filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh through Controller, Printing and Stationary Department, was allowed, vide order dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure P-3) and the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the same, was rejected by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 09.03.2017 (Annexure P- 4). Feeling aggrieuved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Loearned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugCned orders are per se perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the procedure prescribed under the 1971 Act, was not followed at all. He submitted that no notice, as is envisaged under Section 4 of the 1971 Act was even issued to the petitioner and, therefore, as the proceedings from the very initial stage were vitiated, the orders which have resulted from said proceedings are void ab initio. He further submitted that otherwise also the proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the 1971 Act, for the reason that as the petitioner was in valid possession of the premises even before the property was acquired for the benefit of the Controller, Printing and Stationary Department, from a private individual, therefore, simply because the same stood acquired subsequently, this would not have otherwise rendered the possession of the petitioner as bad in law.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no merit in the petition for the reason that the procedure prescribed in the 1971 Act was duly followed while puassing the impugned orders and as the petitioner waos duly heard by the Authorities, both at the stage of passinCg of the order by the first Authority as well as at the Appellate Authority and as petitioner was given full opportunity to put forth his claim, therefore, this petition be dismsised. He also referred to the record of the case and submitted that Ved Prakash, the original owner of the property had stated before the Revenue Authority that the petitioner was never inducted as a tenant in the estate.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned orders.

6. Section 4 of the 1971 Act, inter alia, provides that whenever a Collector is of the opinion that any persons that are in authorized occupation of any public premises situated within his jurisdiction and that they should be evicted, the Collector shall issue in the manner provided under Section 4 of the Act, a n