IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 L.P.A. No. 2098 of 2011 (O&M) The State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Pardeep Kumar and others. …Respondents L.P.A. No. 2099 of 2011 (O&M) The State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Sukhwinder Singh and others. …Respondents L.P.A. No. 2100 of 2011 (O&M) The State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Raj Rani and others. …Respondents L.P.A. No. 2101 of 2011 (O&M) The State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Pritam Kaur and others. …Respondents L.P.A. No. 2112 of 2011 (O&M) The State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Gurdial Singh and others. …Respondents L.P.A. No. 2113 of 2011 (O&M) The State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Gurcharan Singh and others. …Respondents LPA No. 2098 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 2114 of 2011 (O&M) The State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Pritam Singh and others. …Respondents L.P.A. No. 2115 of 2011 (O&M) The State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Vijay Rani and others. … Respondents L.P.A. No. 2116 of 2011 (O&M) The State of Haryana …Appellant Versus Swarana Rani and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl.A.G, Haryana, for the appellant. Paramjeet Singh, J. The above mentioned Nine Letters Patent Appeals bearing LPA No. 2098 of 2011 in CWP No. 18760 of 2010, LPA No. 2099 of 2011 in CWP No. 18658 of 2010, LPA No. 2100 of 2011 in CWP No. 18655 of 2010, LPA No. 2101 of 2011 in CWP No. 18651 of 2011, LPA No. 2112 of 2011 in CWP No. 18656 of 2010, LPA No. 2113 of 2011 in CWP No. 18653 of 2011, LPA No. 2114 of 2011 in CWP No. 18654 of 2010, LPA No. 2115 of 2011 in CWP No. 18652 of 2010 and LPA No. 2116 of 2011 in CWP No. 18657 of 2010 have been listed together for hearing. Learned counsel for the appellant 2 LPA No. 2098 of 2011 has referred to the facts in L.P.A. No. 2098 of 2011. All the abovementioned Nine Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. The instant Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2011 whereby order dated 20.03.2009 (Annexure P/13) passed by the Collector, Assandh, under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and order dated 06.05.2010 (Annexure P/15) passed by the Commissioner, in appeal against the order of the Collector, have been set aside. Though this appeal is barred by limitation as along with the appeal, the appellant has filed an application for condonation of 50 days of delay in filing the appeal, however, without taking the said delay into consideration, the appeals have been heard on merits. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as, the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner. The identical question of facts and law arise in all these Letters Patent Appeals and same are from the common order of learned Single Judge and the order of the Collector, as well as of the Commissioner. In the instant case, the case of the appellant is that vide notification dated 21.10.1975 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 land measuring 27 kanals 17 marlas, was acquired out of which land measuring 6 kanals is out of Khasra No. 3 LPA No. 2098 of 2011 1636, for construction of Bus Stand at Assandh, was acquired. The notification under Section 6 dated 11.05.1978 was issued. The total area of Khasra No. 1636 is 13 kanals 13 marlas. The appellant alleged that the contesting respondents are in unauthorized possession of the part of land of Khasra No. 1636 and have raised construction on the land shown in the site plan without any allotment or lease or grant from the Government of Haryana. It is also alleged that the possession of the respondents is illegal. They are unauthorized occupants. The State of Haryana through General Manager, Haryana Roadways filed petitions under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The Collector ordered the eviction of the private respondents. The privates respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner challenging the order of the Collector. Vide order dated 06.05.2010 (Annexure P/16), the Commissioner has observed as under:- “As far as the prayer of the appellants (in appeals No. 152 to 160) that if there is any decrease of land from Khasra No. 1636 and in case some area of Bus Stand is found underneath the houses of appellants, the same may be deducted from the other land of the original landowners available at the site and that the appellants be allowed to remain in possession of the land in question in order to save them from irreparable loss, is concerned, the appellants are at liberty to approach the authority concerned i.e. Transport Department in this regard and the Transport Department may consider such request of the 4 LPA No. 2098 of 2011 appellants on merit and take any decision in the interest of justice.” Against the order of the Commissioner, the State of Haryana through General Manager, Haryana Roadways, filed writ petitions in this Court, which have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 09.08.2011. The learned Single Judge has recorded a specific finding that vide Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, total 27 kanals 17 marlas of land was acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of bus stand, out of which, land measuring 6 kanals is out of khasra No. 1636, its total area being 13 kanals 13 marlas. It is also admitted fact on record that the private respondents have purchased the land in dispute vide different sale deeds, ranging from the year 1982 onwards and they have constructed their houses without any interruption. All of sudden, after about more than 28 years of the acquisition, the eviction proceedings under the Act has been initiated. The learned Single Judge has made reference to paragraph no.8 of the writ petition and paragraph nos. 8 and 10 of the reply filed by the appellant and had come to a conclusion that the purchaser came into possession on 02.09.1982. Haryana Roadways has raised the boundary wall of the Bus Stand over the acquired land and remaining part of the land out of khasra No. 1636 is beyond the boundary wall where the construction has been carried out by the respective private respondents. The learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that the present appellant had failed to specify as to on which date the possession of acquired part of khasra No. 1636 was taken by the 5 LPA No. 2098 of 2011 State, in pursuance to the acquisition. It is also recorded that the State has failed to prove taking over the actual physical possession of the acquired land out of khasra No. 1636. It is also the case of the private respondents that neither any compensation has been received by the original owners of Khasra No. 1636 nor any reference was made by the original owners for enhancement of compensation for land of khasra No. 1636. The learned Single Judge placing on record the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Prahlad Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 386 has recorded findings as under:- “Had original owners of Khasra No. 1636 or their legal heirs or transferees received the compensation or had any reference been made by them for enhancement of compensation certainly as per dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh (supra), this Court would have arrived at the conclusion that possession of acquired land of khasra No. 1636 was taken by the State and present petitioners are unauthorized occupants. However, since, landowners have not received compensation and have not made any reference for enhancement of the compensation, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, this Court in view of observations made hereinabove, has no hesitation to hold that State never took possession of any part of khasra No. 1636.” We have also questioned the State counsel that what is the evidence on record to show that the houses constructed are not 6 LPA No. 2098 of 2011 on the part which is remaining part of the original owner i.e. 7 kanals 13 marlas out of the total 13 kanals 13 marlas land, out of which 6 kanals is alleged to have been acquired by the State of Haryana. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any cogent evidence and furnish satisfactory explanation regarding the same. Admittedly, the Bus Stand has been constructed more than 30 years ago and boundary wall was constructed around the Bus Stand and the construction of the houses of the private respondents is outside the boundary wall. We are of the view that the houses have been constructed in the un-acquired part of the land i.e. 7 kanals 13 marlas which the private respondents have purchased from the original rightful owners. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeals are dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE November 22, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 7