IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 702 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 08.04.2011 Vijay Kumar .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 16.2.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 14390 of 2009) filed by the appellant, for issuing direction to the respondents to consider his case for sale of the land in question, has been dismissed. Though this appeal is barred by limitation and the appellant has filed an application (CM No. 1844 of 2011), duly supported by an affidavit, for condoning the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal, but we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits. The Learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while coming to the conclusion that the appellant is making every LPA No. 702 of 2011 ( O&M ) -2- effort to usurp the public property, from which he has already been ordered to be ejected, and to retain his illegal possession, he managed the passing of resolutions from the Municipal Committee, Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra (herein referred to as `the respondent Municipal Committee'), at the time, when his close relatives, like father and brother were the President of the respondent Municipal Committee, dismissed the writ petition. It is an admitted position that initially, the land in dispute was taken on yearly lease from the respondent Municipal Committee. Subsequently, when father of the appellant was the President of the respondent Municipal Committee, the said lease was converted into a lease for 99 years. However, this lease was cancelled in the year 1989, giving five years time to the appellant to vacate the land. The cancellation order was challenged by the appellant by filing a civil suit, which was dismissed and he was held to be illegal encroacher on the Municipality land. On the application, filed by the respondent Municipal Committee under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,1972, the appellant was ordered to be ejected. His appeal against the eviction order was also dismissed. The ejectment order has become final. Instead of vacating the land, the appellant raised more construction on the land. Subsequently, the appellant in connivance with the office bearers of the respondent Municipal Committee got passed a resolution dated 20.1.2003 to the effect that the land in question be allotted to him. The said resolution was passed, when brother of the appellant was the President of the LPA No. 702 of 2011 ( O&M ) -3- respondent Municipal Committee. At the time of passing of the eviction order against the appellant, he was also directed to pay a sum of ` 1,000/- per marla from 1983 onwards towards use and occupation of the disputed land. A sum of ` 44,17,920/- is due against the appellant as mesne profits. Till date, this amount has also not been paid by the appellant. The prayer of the appellant is that in view of the aforesaid resolution, the respondent Municipal Committee be directed to consider his case for sale of the land in question to him under Rule 8 (2) of the Haryana Management of Municipal Properties and State Properties Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'). The learned Single Judge, while recording detailed reasons and noticing the conduct of the appellant as well as the fact that with the help of his close relatives, who happened to be President of the respondent Municipal Committee, without payment of mesne profits and lease amount, the appellant has retained his illegal possession over the disputed land, has dismissed the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in spite of all the aforesaid facts, since the appellant is still in occupation of the disputed land, therefore, the respondent Municipal Committee is to consider his claim under Rule 8 (2) of the Rules. A perusal of this Rule reveals that it empowers the municipality to sell a site/building by allotment with the prior approval of the State Government to the occupier of the site/building, on an application made in this behalf, if (a) he is occupying it for more than 20 years; (b) it was allotted either on rent, lease or tehbazari initially; (c) the municipality is earning only nominal revenue from it; (d) it is difficult to LPA No. 702 of 2011 ( O&M ) -4- take back the possession or to increase the rent/lease money; (e) it is not a part of street/road and its disposal shall not hinder the smooth movement of the traffic/people. This Rule, though may authorise the Municipal Committee to dispose of the site or land, if they so desire and they come to the conclusion that disposal of such land is in the interest of the municipality, but an illegal occupant has no right to get the same allotted under this clause. In the present case, it cannot be said that it is difficult for the respondent Municipal Committee to take back the possession or to increase the lease money, because in this case, the order of ejectment has already been passed and the said order has become final. Thus, it is not the case, where a lessee cannot be ejected for certain reasons. In the present case, an attempt has been made by the appellant to usurp the public property and keep his illegal possession in connivance with the office bearers of the respondent Municipal Committee, who happens to be father and brother of the appellant. While taking into consideration these facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined the prayer of the appellant. Thus, We do not find any reason to interfere in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 08, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE