Judgment:
Kumar ViNo.2013.09.06 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21002 of 2011 [1].***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.21002 of 2011 Date of decision:02.09.2013 Ravinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no.3.
***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
Petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.11.2010 passed by the Collector, Ambala, and order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, under the Haryana Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.).The case set up by the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of village Majri, Tehsil and District Ambala.
He has a house in 4 kanals of land which falls in KhaSr.No.52 (Gair Mumkin Abadi) which comprises of a big parcel of land measuring 469 Kanals 11 Marlas.
Respondent no.3 filed application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for Kumar ViNo.2013.09.06 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21002 of 2011 [2].***** ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that it had purchased 8 Kanals of land in KhaSr.No.52min vide registered sale deed dated 18.02.1980 from the Gram Panchayat which is in occupation of the petitioner to the extent of 4 Kanals 3 Marlas who has constructed a boundary wall and two shops.
In reply, the petitioner averred that respondent no.3 had earlier filed application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands and (Regulation) Act, 1961, which was dismissed on 28.04.2004 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ambala, and the present application is not maintainable as the property in dispute is not a public premises to which the Act is not applicable.
However, respondent no.2, on the basis of the demarcation report dated 17.02.2006 and the sale deed dated 18.02.1980, ordered eviction of the petitioner on 08.11.2010 which was maintained by the Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 27.07.2011.
It is, inter alia, argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the land in dispute is not the public premises, as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act.
No show cause notice was ever served upon him which is mandatory and further that the show cause notice can only be issued in Form-A attached with the Act.
There is nothing on record which could connect the property in dispute with the property mentioned in the sale deed.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.3 has filed a short reply in which he has averred that the land in dispute measuring 4 Kanals 3 Marlas is part of the land measuring 8 Kanals which has been purchased by respondent no.3 by way of sale deed.
Insofar as the question as to whether Kumar ViNo.2013.09.06 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21002 of 2011 [3].***** the land in dispute is a public premises in terms of Section 2(e) of the Act is concerned, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dharmvir v.
The Commissioner, Patiala Division and otheRs.1987 (2) Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 193.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The foremost question in this case is as to “whether the land in dispute is a public premises or not?.”.
The “public premises”.
has been defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, which reads as under:- “(e) “public premises”.
means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the State Government or requisitioned by the competent authority under the “Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953 and includes and premises belonging to any Local authority or District SoldieRs.SailORS.and Airmen's Board or any university established by law or any Corporation or Board owned or controlled by the State Government.”
According to the aforesaid definition, the public premises means the premises belonging to the State Government or taken on lease by it or by a competent authority under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953 and also includes premises belonging to any Local authority or District SoldieRs.SailORS.and Airmen's Board or any university established by law or any Corporation or Board Kumar ViNo.2013.09.06 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21002 of 2011 [4].***** owned or controlled by the State Government.
The question is as to whether respondent no.3, which is a Cooperative Society, falls in any of the aforesaid authorities.
Apparently, from a bare look at Section 2(e) of the Act, it is clear that the Cooperative Societies are not included in the definition.
However, in Dharmvir's case (supra).the eviction petition was filed by the Patiala Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Patiala, against the petitioner therein who was the lessee.
It was held therein that if the Society is constituted under the Act in which the Government has more than 51% share, then it would be a public premises.
The decision in the case of Dharmvir's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
Nothing has been brought on record that the Government has more than 51% of share in respondent no.3-society.
In view thereof, in my considered opinion, the land owned by respondent no.3 does not fall within the definition of Section 2(e) of the Act and as a consequence thereof, application filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for the purpose of seeking eviction of the petitioner is not maintainable.
Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Collector and Divisional Commissioner are hereby set aside.
September 02, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE