IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANIGARH. CWP No. 7920 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.11.2010 Shanti Lal ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Hisar Division & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Raman B Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 3. **** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) Through this petition, the petitioner has called in question order dated 30.8.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate exercising the powers of Collector, Tohan, District Fatehabad under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act. Vide the impugned order the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land in question, where he allegedly raised unauthorised construction. It has been held that the land in dispute is a public street and the petitioner has raised illegal construction by encroaching the same. It has also been observed that the petitioner has failed to establish his ownership over the land in question. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar who has dismissed the same vide order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-9) which is also under challenge in the present petition. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner raised a dispute regarding the demarcation of the land in question. This Court vide CWP No. 7920 of 2009 -2- its order dated 7.9.2009 directed respondent No. 3 to get the demarcation of the public street and the houses of the petitioner through Revenue Officer before the next date of hearing and put the report on record. In compliance to the aforesaid direction demarcation has been carried out by Kanungo and Patwari Halka in presence of the officials of the Municipal Council, Tohana. The report is placed on record as Annexure R-1. along with photographs as Annexure R-2. From the perusal of the report it appears that though the land where the petitioner raised the construction has not been shown in the Revenue Record as public street, however, at site there is a public street in existence. It has also been reported that the petitioner has no title over the land in question. From the photographs (Annexure R-2), it also appears that there is a street with houses on both sides and at the end of the street, which ultimately leads to main road, the petitioner has raised construction leaving a very narrow space for ingress and egress to the street. The petitioner has relied upon a document Annexure P-1 to establish his possession over the land in question. From the perusal of the Annexure P-1, it appears that it is an agreement to hand over possession executed by one Balwant Singh S/o Mala Singh with one Kutubdin S/o Karibdin. From the text of the agreement, it appears that Balwant Singh has handed over the possessory rights in favour of Kutub Din, for a consideration of Rs. 2000. No material has been placed on record to show that the Balwant Singh, who allegedly transferred the possession was himself owner of the land in question. Even in the writ petition there is no such averment. The agreement is also not a registered document or accompanied with any revenue record, which may establish any right or claim of the Balwant Singh over the land in question. CWP No. 7920 of 2009 -3- This agreement cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner to establish his right to occupy the land in any manner. Existence of public street is established from the report of the Revenue Officers appointed by this Court, which is not disputed. Section 61 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1971 deals with the vesting of property with the Municipal Council. Apart from all public streets, Shamlat Deh vests with Municipal Council. From the agreement, it appeas that land in question is Shamlat. Though there is no documentary proof in support thereof. In both the situations, whether it is a street or Shamlat land, it vests with the Municipal Council. The petitioner has failed to establish any legal right over the property. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the authorities for eviction of the petitioner. No merits, petition stands dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) 08.11.2010 JUDGE Poonam(II)