IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1681 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 9.12.2010 Ram Singh …..Appellant versus Commissioner and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 1.12.2010, dismissing CWP No.21437 of 2010, filed by the appellant-petitioner. It is apparent from the record that respondent No.3 filed an application under Sections 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972, against the appellant, for his ejectment from the land/ shop situated in khasra No.205/1. It was case of respondent No.3 that the said land was acquired vide award dated 11.7.1963 to develop a Mandi Township in Kaithal. By alleging that the appellant is sitting unauthorisedly over that land, ejectment was sought. The appellant filed reply, claiming therein ownership of the land in dispute on the basis of a sale deed, executed in his favour, in the LPA No.1681 of 2010(O&M) year 1949. Application was allowed, ordering ejectment of the appellant on 29.10.2009 and also directing him to pay ` 9480/- per year towards use and occupation of that land. Appellant went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 31.8.2010. It is an admitted fact that despite many opportunities granted by the authority concerned to produce evidence, the appellant has failed to do that and accordingly, case was decided on the basis of evidence available with the competent Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, by observing as under:- “Though many contentions had been raised in the petition, to my mind, the primary determinant of this case is the admitted fact that the petitioner was given 15 opportunities to lead his evidence before the Estate Officer but no evidence was led by him. Not only that the petitioner filed an appeal after more than a period of one year but neither the petitioner nor his counsel bothered to appear before the appellate authority as well. It was for these authorities to determine the primary question of fact relating to the alleged ownership of the petitioner over the land in dispute and to determine the question of law regarding the right of respondent No.3- Market Committee to claim the eviction of the petitioner. In these circumstances the arguments now sought to be raised cannot be looked into by this Court.” We are satisfied with the reasoning given. Otherwise also, once the appellant has claimed ownership of the property, in dispute, which was acquired by the State authorities in the year 1963 and thereafter award 2 LPA No.1681 of 2010(O&M) was passed, at the maximum the appellant can claim compensation. He is not permitted to insist that he will continue to sit over that land. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 09.12.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3