IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.815 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.9.2009 Garib Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Union of India and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order dated 27.8.2009, allowing the application of the respondents for recall of earlier order dated 23.4.2009. 2. The appellant was ordered to be evicted vide order dated 24.1.2006 passed by respondent No.3, Estate Officer, Defence, Military Area, Patiala. The said order was affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. LPA No.815 of 2009 3. On writ petition before this Court, the matter was disposed of on 23.4.2009 with a direction that demarcation be done before dispossessing the appellant. 4. The respondents filed an application for recall of order dated 23.4.2009 on the ground that demarcation had already been done on 19.1.2009 which was not known to the counsel for the respondents. The appellant contested the said application by stating that no demarcation had in fact taken place. No notice of demarcation was issued to the appellant and the report was not correct. 3. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge recalled order dated 23.4.2009. It was observed that as per demarcation report, Annexure R-4 (which appears to have been mentioned as Annexure P-4 in the impugned order), the appellant was in unauthorised possession, as land of the respondents was less than the land of which they are recorded to be owners. The appellant had constructed four walls on the part of land of the respondents. Plea of the appellant that demarcation had not been done was rejected. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not joined in demarcation proceedings. It was nowhere stated as to which area of the Khasra number was less and which area was in unauthorized occupation of the appellant. 2 LPA No.815 of 2009 Procedure under the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Vol.1, Chapter-I, Part-M has not been followed. 6. We are unable to accept the submissions. 7. There is concurrent finding of fact by the Estate Officer as well as the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional District Judge that the appellant was in unauthorised possession of the public premises. Vide order dated 23.4.2009, order was passed for demarcation by the Tehsildar without noticing that demarcation had already been done and when it was pointed out by the respondents that the demarcation had already been done and the appellant was in unauthorised possession, the earlier order for demarcation being unnecessary, has been withdrawn. 8. We do not find any ground to hold that concurrent finding of appellant being in unauthorised possession is perverse. Learned counsel has not indicated any material to show that the appellant had any right to the area in his possession. There is, thus, no reason to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 14, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3