C.W.P No. 1011 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : September 09, 2010 1. C.W.P No. 1011 of 1987 (O&M) Gurdeep Singh and others vs State of Haryana and another, 2. C.W.P No.1259 of 1987 (O&M) Ajit Singh vs State of Haryana and another, *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.S.Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl.A.G Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of CWP Nos.1011 and 1259 of 1987 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.1011 of 1987. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings taken against them under the Haryana Public Premises & Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short `the Act'). The primary contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate authority accepted that no notice under Section 4 of the Act was C.W.P No. 1011 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: issued to the petitioners and straightway summons were issued. Counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded the fact that the appellate authority indeed accepted this factual position. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Sunita Devi v. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 720 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- “13. It is not a case where lease deed was created in the name of the petitioners but the petitioners continued to be in possession of the land. In the absence thereof, the possession of the petitioners over the land is unauthorized and they are liable to be evicted from the School land. However, at the same time while initiating the ejectment proceedings, the Collector did not resort to the issuance of show cause notice under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act ibid about their unauthorized possession over the suit property, which is the condition precedent under the Haryana Public Premises Act, 1971. Thus, the orders Annexures P-9 and P-10 passed without complying with the condition precedent, are non-est in the eyes of law. The writ petition is being accepted on this technical ground and the orders Annexures P-9 and P-10, are hereby quashed.” I find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. It is also not disputed that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants over the land in dispute. However, since the mandatory notice has not been issued, these proceedings have to be C.W.P No. 1011 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: quashed. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. It would, however, be open to the authorities to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 09, 2010. JUDGE `kk'