IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.409 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2010 Suraj Kumar. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of eviction under the provisions of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”). 2. An application was filed by the State under Section 4 of the Act, alleging unauthorised possession by the appellant after expiry of the lease period. The application was disposed of by the Collector vide order dated 4.7.2006, allowing the appellant to purchase the property by paying a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-. On appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the LPA No.409 of 2009 Collector and held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to allow purchase of the property in question by the appellant in proceedings under the Act. Since the appellant was in unauthorised possession, order of eviction had to be passed. The said order was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner. It was observed that if the appellant was eligible for allotment under the policy of the Government, he could take his remedies in accordance with law. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. It is clear from the findings recorded by the Commissioner, as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner that possession of the appellant on the suit property is unauthorised. Only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that since his application was pending with the Government, the appellant should not be dispossessed when he was willing to pay the amount as per order of the Collector. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. The scope of proceedings under the Act is limited to decide whether a person is in unauthorised possession of public premises and once it is found that possession was unauthorised, order of eviction has to be passed. Even if there was a policy of the Government to settle landless persons, under which the appellant was eligible, the appellant could pursue his remedies as per the said policy. 2 LPA No.409 of 2009 6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 09, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3