Judgment:
C.R.No.437 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.437 of 2013 Date of decision : 01.10.2013 Baru Mal ....Petitioner V/s Ladda Sub Division, Irrigation Branch, Ladda ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAJAN GUPTA J.
(ORAL) Present revision petition is directed against the orders passed by the authorities below whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered under the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’).Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the ordeRs.According to him, authorities below did not follow the procedure as laid down by the law while demarcating the property.
In fact Provincial Government was not the owner of the property in question and had no locus-standi to file petition under the Act.
He has emphasized that description of property is not based on demarcation report of Kanungo.
Demarcation, if any, was done was at the back of the petitioner.
Heard.
Brief factual background of the case is that application under sections 4 & 5 of the Act was filed by respondent alleging that it was owner of the land in dispute measuring 0-0-16 biswas Kumar Ajay comprising in Khasara No.183 min situated at village Bardwal, 2013.10.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R.No.437 of 2013 2 Dhuri.
Application was resisted by petitioner.
He submitted that respondent was not the owner of the suit property.
He alleged that procedure as prescribed under the law was not followed while demarcating the suit property.
During proceedings, Sub Divisional Officer examined three witnesses and exhibited certain documents including jamabandi for the year 2003-04, demarcation report dated 10.02.2007 etc.Respondent (petitioner herein) in his evidence examined two witnesses and exhibited jamabandi for the year 2008-09.
On the basis of evidence, the authority came to the conclusion that possession of the respondent-petitioner over the suit property was illegal.
The demarcation report submitted by the Kanungo showed that respondent-petitioner had encroached upon the suit property.
It held that respondent-petitioner had not been able to produce any evidence to prove that his possession was legal.
It, thus, ordered eviction of the respondent under the Act within one month.
Respondent-petitioner preferred an appeal but remained unsuccessful.
I do not find any infirmity with the concurrent findings of the authorities below.
Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that evidence has not been correctly appreciated by the authorities.
There is, thus, no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
October 01, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE Kumar Ajay 2013.10.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document