CWP No. 11277 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11277 of 2006 Date of decision: 10.4.2008 Chameli Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents 2 and 3. K.S.GAREWAL, J. CM 7070 of 2008 is allowed. Annexures P/15 to P/18 are taken on record. Chameli Devi has filed this petition to challenge the eviction proceedings against her under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971. The petitioner had obtained lease of a plot measuring 4032 square feet (448 square yards) near FF Block, Nangal Township. The lease was granted in her favour on August 12, 1987 by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on the terms and conditions mentioned in the lease CWP No. 11277 of 2006 2 deed, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P/1. In the lease deed, the size of the plot was described, the rent of the plot was fixed at Rs. 322.55 per annum to be paid annually advance by April 25 every year. The lease was granted for construction of a Atta chaki (flour mill) for a period of one year commencing from August 12, 1987. The lessee was not entitled to sublet or transfer her right the without previous consent of the Executive Engineer. Several other terms and conditions were also detailed, but these need not detain us. Chameli Devi constructed six shops on the plot in 1989, presumably in violation of the terms of the lease, whereupon she was served with a notice for demolition of the construction and a dispute arose between her and the Board. At a meeting of the Board on August 31, 1995, a decision was taken to regularize the additions and alterations carried out in various shops in the markets at Nangal, Sundernagar and Talwara. It was also decided that the premium of the land for each project station should not be less than the rate fixed by the District Revenue Officer. The minutes of the meeting have been annexed as Annexure P/2. Under item 7, regularization of the unauthorized construction by Chameli Devi was considered, and it was decided that the premium shall be Rs. 350/- per square yard on the same pattern as in the case of shopkeepers at Nangal Township subject to the proviso mentioned in item 2. On the basis of the above decision, Executive Engineer, Nangal Township, wrote to the petitioner on February 1, 1996 stating that the lease of the land under the flour mill in her favour had been approved, the lease was to be of 99 years, on the rate, terms and conditions mentioned in the CWP No. 11277 of 2006 3 letter. The petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 2,01,600/- with SDO, Enforcement Sub Division and also furnish an affidavit as well as non- judicial paper for execution of the lease agreement. It is mystifying why the petitioner did not accept the 99 years lease. Apparently, she felt that the rate being charged was too high, the rate that had been initially fixed was Rs. 350/- per square yard whereas she was being charged Rs. 450/- per square yard. Anyhow the fact remains that the petitioner did not accept the Board's fair and genuine offer and also did not seek any re-negotiation of the rate. Consequently, the Board was left with no option but to cancell the original lease. This was done through letter dated March 31, 1997 (Annexure P/5) whereunder the allotment in the petitioner's name was cancelled and the petitioner was notified that a case was being filed before the appropriate authority for her eviction from the public premises. The petitioner appears to have woken up from slumber after passage of more than a year and half of receiving the notice. On December 14, 1998 she wrote to the Chief Engineer for sympathetic consideration. She stated that she is an oustee of the Board as her land had been acquired for Bhakra Project/Nangal Township. She had been left high and dry with no other source of income. She declared that she was prepared to enter into a fresh lease for the 99 years on the basis of letter dated February 1, 1996 (Annexure P/4). When no action was taken she again wrote on August 9, 1999 (Annexure P/7). The Board in the meanwhile filed a petition under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 for the petitioner's eviction. The Estate Officer on May 29, 2003 CWP No. 11277 of 2006 4 (Annexure P/10) came to the following conclusion:- “...the court agrees with the contention that department had informed respondent vide letter dated 1.2.1996 about the terms & conditions and the rate of premium but the respondent did not come forward to execute the lease agreement till 14.12.1998, when the proceedings against him had been launched and he had no other option but to give willingness to pay the premium in order to avoid eviction. However, by then, the rates of premium had increased many fold and when the department gave revised rates as per Board policy, the respondent categorically stated in the court that new rates are not acceptable. Thus due to not agreeing to execute lease agreement with the department the offer of the board to regularize the violations became unimplemented and the respondents became unauthorized occupants of the plot in dispute...” An eviction order was passed against the petitioner which drove her to file an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, who on January 12, 2006 (Annexure P/11) came to the following conclusion:- “...The area of 4032 square feet come to 1344 square yards (sic) and premium of this area at the rate of Rs. 350/- per square yard will come to Rs. 4,70,400/- but the appellant has mentioned area of only 448 square yards. Even in the case of M/s Shivalik Talkies, it has not been mentioned that their area has been regularized without premium. Therefore, even as per Board CWP No. 11277 of 2006 5 policy, the appellant/defendant was required to deposit the premium as per Board's policy and to execute fresh lease. Therefore, the demand of the respondent of the premium amount and execution of fresh lease is in accordance with law and is not unjustified. During the proceedings of the case, sufficient time has been given to the appellant/defendant to execute the fresh lease after depositing the requisite amount, but before lower court appellant/defendant failed to execute fresh lease after depositing the premium and other amounts as per Board's policy....” The petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge the orders Annexures P/10 and P/11 on the ground that the demand of Rs. 450/- per square yard as premium was not justified in view of the Board's decision dated August 31, 1985 wherein Rs. 350/-per square yard has been fixed as a premium, the order cancelling the lease is also illegal. In the reply filed on behalf of the Board, several preliminary submissions were made to the effect that the petitioner had obtained transfer of the plot from Baikunthi Devi in an unauthorized manner, she had unauthorizedly constructed six shops without permission and further sublet the shops. After the Board had decided to regularize the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to deposit one time premium value of the lease money but she did not come forward to execute a fresh lease agreement. Even during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, she had submitted an application that she was prepared to enter a fresh agreement but she again backed out. It was contended that in a similar situation eviction order had been passed against CWP No. 11277 of 2006 6 M/s Shivalik Talkies Pvt. Ltd. in CWP 4255 of 2005 on May 29, 2006 for eviction of the unauthorized occupation. Special Leave petition filed by M/s Shivalik Talkies Pvt. Ltd. was also dismissed by the Supreme Court after some very strong observations. “...the Estate Officer shall take steps forthwith for delivery of possession of the property in question to that possession may be delivered latest by 7th April, 2007. It is directed that if for effecting delivery of possession armed force is necessary, the same shall be deployed by the concerned Superintendent of Police within 48 hours requisition therefor is received. It is further directed that if any person, other than the petitioner is found to be in possession of the subject of dispute, he shall be also dispossessed by the armed force...” Most of the legal submissions made by the petitioner were controverted but the factual statement was accepted as being correct. Even during the course of the proceedings, an attempt had been made by the Bench to see if the petitioner was prepared to accept a fresh lease on the current rate. In order to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties, the petitioner was granted time to find out what the rate would be. Consequently, the petitioner placed on record the Collector's rate for Nangal supplied by the Public Information Officer, Rupnagar, where the rate for Hambewal (the village in which the property in question was located) was shown as Rs. 1778/- per square yard. The petitioner also placed on record Basic Value Master 2007-2008 in which rate for Hambewal has been shown Rs. 1778/- per square yard but the rate for the main market, where the petitioner's plot is located was shown as Rs. 6510/- per square yard. CWP No. 11277 of 2006 7 However, the parties were unable to arrive at a settlement inspite of indulgence granted by the Court. Resultantly, the petitioner cannot continue to occupy the plot in question. She had been ordered to be evicted by the Estate Officer and her appeal had been dismissed. The petitioner has not raised any substantial question of law to challenge the decisions taken by the authorities under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971. Therefore, she must hand over possession to the Board on the basis of the decision of the Estate Officer dated May 29, 2003 (Annexure P/10) which had also been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, on January 12, 2006 (Annexure P/11). This petition is consequently dismissed. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 10.4.2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) prem JUDGE