Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharamvir vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 September, 2014
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CWP No. 16943 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16943 of 2012
Date of decision : 25.09.2014
Dharamvir
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana & ors.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana.
RAJAN GUPTA J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by orders, Annexures P2 & P3 passed by Collector and Commissioner, Hisar Division respectively directing eviction of the petitioner from land in question.
Petitioner claims that he was given 21 kanals 7 marlas land in open auction held on 27.04.1968 at the rate of `225/- p.a. Same land was again leased out to him in the year 1970-71 at the rate of `650/- p.a. Lease was not extended after year 1972-73. On 15.08.1981, eviction petition was filed invoking provisions of Haryana Public Premises & Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Vide order dated 07.04.1982, ejection petition filed by respondent no. 4 was dismissed by Collector on the ground that petitioner could not be said to be in unauthorized occupation of land. State of Haryana preferred appeal before Commissioner, Hisar Division but remained unsuccessful. State of Haryana impugned the order before this court in CWP No. 1830 of 1984. Same was decided on 28.01.2004 AJAY KUMAR 2014.09.25 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 16943 of 2012 2 and case was remitted to the Collector for decision afresh. LPA No. 22 of 2004 was preferred by petitioner. However, during pendency of same, Collector passed order dated 29.04.2004 directing eviction of the petitioner and holding him liable to pay `1,21,359/- as damages. Aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before Commissioner, Hisar Division but remained unsuccessful. While dismissing the appeal, Commissioner suo moto enhanced the amount of damages and held that petitioner was required to pay `12,000/- p.a. alongwith compounding interest at the rate of `8% p.a. Petitioner impugned the orders passed by Collector and Commissioner by way of CWP No. 11683 of 2009. Same was decided on 16.07.2012, operative part thereof reads as under:-
"The Collector had directed eviction of the petitioner, which was not given effect to because of pendency of Latters Patent Appeal before this Court. The LPA has also been decided and now the order of eviction as well as payment of damages has become final. The petitioner through miscellaneous application has sought to enlarge the scope of writ petition by making a prayer for allotment of this land in terms of the instructions, which came to his notice subsequently. This will be a separate cause of action for the petitioner and in case he is so advised, he may file a separate petition. The issue in regard to ejectment having become final, would not call for any interference.
The petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file separate petition to seek allotment of the land in accordance with law, if otherwise permissible."
This is second round of litigation by the petitioner. He has inter alia prayed that his plea for allotment of the land in AJAY KUMAR 2014.09.25 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 16943 of 2012 3 dispute be considered as per instructions dated 03.11.1987, Annexure P5. He has assailed both the orders on the ground that petitioner is in possession of land since 1968 and cannot be dispossessed on flimsy grounds. Besides, he has right to purchase the land from the Government in view of its policy.
Plea has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel. According to him, petitioner has been in illegal occupation of the land for a very long time and enjoyed usufruct thereof without any legal right. According to him, policy, Annexure P5 was floated in respect of an other chunk of land to be allotted to certain criminal tribes known as Vimukat Jatis. Same is not applicable to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the petition. It is evident that petitioner impugned order Annexures P2 & P3 earlier in CWP No. 11683 of 2009. This court clearly held that issue with regard to ejectment/damges had attained finality and called for no interference. Thus, petitioner was given liberty to file separate petition to seek allotment of land in accordance with law. However, petitioner has again impugned the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. Challenge to same is unsustainable in view of the fact that matter has already been adjudicated upon in CWP No. 11683 of 2009 by this court. As regards prayer of the petitioner for consideration of his case under policy, Annexure P5, same is untenable. According to stand of the State, said policy was framed to provide succor to certain criminal tribes in respect of another chunk of land. It is inexplicable how petitioner can be considered AJAY KUMAR 2014.09.25 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 16943 of 2012 4 under the said policy. This prayer is mis-conceived. Petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
September 25, 2014 (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay JUDGE
AJAY KUMAR
2014.09.25 16:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document