CWP No.56 of 2012

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 56 of 2012

Date of Decision: January 03, 2012

Phulia @ Manphool

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others.

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

Present:

Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

(wrongly mentioned in the petition as “Phulia alias Manphool son of Ram

Dhan” instead of “Phulia alias Manphool son of Gopal son of Ram Dhan”)

under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order

dated 07.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3 – Sub

Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Hisar, whereby the petitioner has

been ordered to be evicted under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public

Premises and Land (Evicton and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act) and has also been ordered to pay penalty of

Rs.6,64,528/- for use and occupation of the unauthorized possession of the

land in dispute and for quashing of order dated 26.07.2011 (Annexure P/2)

passed by respondent No.2 – Commissioner, Hisar Division, whereby the

appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.

CWP No.56 of 2012

2

The brief facts of the case are that the State of Haryana through

Sub Divisional Officer, Irrigation Department, Tehsil Adampur, District

Hisar, filed an application under Section 4 of the Act before the Sub

Divisional Officer-cum-Collector, Hisar for eviction of the petitioner from

the land measuring 41 Kanals 2 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 14//5/2(0-13),

6 (8-0), 7/1 (0-8), 24/2 (4-16), 25 (8-0), 15//10/2 (2-6), 11(7-7), 20/2 (4-16),

21/1 (4-16), situated at Village Sadalpur, Adampur, on the ground that the

Government of Haryana is owner of the aforesaid land and the petitioner is

in unauthorised possession. The land was given earlier on lease and the

lease was extended upto 31.03.1978. After the expiry of lease, possession of

the petitioner is unauthorized.

In pursuance to the application, show cause notice was issued

to the petitioner as per the rules and the provisions of the Act. The petitioner

filed his written reply to the said notice. The petitioner has been trying to

delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other. Out of the land measuring

41 Kanals 2 Marlas, in the year 1977-78, the land measuring 21 Kanals 17

Marlas was given to the petitioner – Manphool son of Gopal and land

measuring 19 Kanals 5 Marlas was given to Shawan son of Khiya in auction

on lease. But on expiry of the lease on 31.03.1978, the petitioner had not

handed over the possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner had earlier

filed a Civil Suit claiming ownership of the land in question. Civil Court

had recorded a finding that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession and

he can be evicted in due course of law.

After that, application under the provisions of the Act had been

filed by the State of Haryana and the petitioner had been ordered to be

evicted by the Collector vide order dated 07.12.2010 (Annexure P/1). The

CWP No.56 of 2012

3

Collector has also ordered to pay penalty of Rs.6,64,528/- for use and

occupation being in unauthorized possession of the land in dispute, within

30 days. In case of non payment of amount, 6% interest would be recovered

from the petitioner. An appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated

07.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) had also been dismissed by the Commissioner

vide order dated 26.07.2011 (Annexure P/2)

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and

have perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice issued

under Section 4 of the Act is not a valid notice and since, the petitioner was

a lessee, he cannot be evicted under the provisions of the Act. Furthermore,

it is submitted that penalty can not be imposed under the provisions of the

Act.

I have considered the contention of the learned cou