C.W.P. No.20269 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.20269 of 2008 Decided on :01-12-2008 Murari alias Krishan Murari & another ......Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present:- Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Hemant Gupta, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 30.01.2003 (Annexure P1) and dated 18.07.2005(Annexure P2) , whereby petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 have been ordered to pay compensation @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. and @ Rs.5000/- p.m. respectively. Proceedings under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') were initiated against the petitioner on account of unauthorized occupation of the public property i.e. land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. But still, the petitioner is continuing in the possession of the same. It was by virtue of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 06.11.1995, the Market Committee was held to be owner of the property. But the Market Committee could take possession only on 30.10.1998. Thereafter, the Market Committee initiated proceedings for C.W.P. No.20269 of 2008 -2- recovery of damages from the occupant of the public property in which it has been found that the petitioner No.1 has, in fact, given the said land on rent to different 11 tenants and also withdrawn the amount of compensation awarded on account of acquisition of land. Thus, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5000/- per month was awarded against the petitioners respectively. The Collectors found the compensation cannot be awarded against tenants. The said order is affirmed in the appeal as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the amount claimed is highly excessive inasmuch in respect of other occupants, the damages awarded were Rs.5000/- per year. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The Petitioner No.1 has occupied public property unauthorizedly and rented the same to 11 different tenants. It may be stated that petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. Not only the petitioners were unauthorized occupants, but also collected rent. The petitioner has made unauthorized use of the public property for their pecuniary benefits. The amount of compensation is thus, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjustified which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petitioners, who have remained in unauthorized occupation of the public property cannot be granted indulgence in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed in limine. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 1st December 2008. (Nawab Singh) Monika Judge