C.R. No. 366 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 366 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.03.2010 Ram Murti .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present:- Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Swapan Shorey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 366 of 2009 titled Ram Murti Vs. State of Punjab and another, Civil Revision No.7535 of 2009 titled Ramu Vs. State of Punjab and another, Civil Revision No. 3486 of 2008 titled Madan Gopal Vs. State of Punjab and another, Civil Revision No.3488 of 2008 titled Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, Civil Revision No.3487 of 2008 titled Baljinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, Civil Revision No. 7684 of 2009 titled Karminder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, Civil Revision No. 538 of 2009 titled Raj Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and another and Civil Revision No. 539 of 2009 titled Karnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, as common questions of law and facts are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 366 of 2009. The plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction, C.R. No. 366 of 2009 (O&M) -2- seeking relief against the defendant/respondents from dispossessing them from the property in dispute, except by following due process of law. The case set up by the petitioners was, that earlier an attempt was made by the municipal committee, to dispossess the petitioners illegally by use of force. The petitioners were forced to file a civil suit for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed on 2.11.1982 and the respondent-Municipal Committee, Patiala, was restrained from dispossessing the petitioners, except by following due process of law. According to the plaintiff/petitioners, the decree has attained finality, as it was not challenged in any Court of competent jurisdiction. It is also the case of the plaintiff/petitioners that the report of the Local Commissioner, submitted in a public interest litigation in this Court, is being mis-interpreted by the department, to hold that the petitioners are to be evicted under the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. According to the petitioners, cause of action arose to file the suit on 11.4.2008, when notice was issued by Forest Range Officer, Patiala, calling the petitioners to vacate the Forest Department land. Along with the suit, the petitioners filed an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction against their dispossession, in pursuance to the notice dated 11.4.2008. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends, that the petitioners are very poor people, and their livelihood is going to be affected, if the necessary protection is not granted against C.R. No. 366 of 2009 (O&M) -3- their dispossession during the pendency of the suit. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to reproduce the notice dated 11.4.2008, issued to the petitioners calling upon them to vacate the property in their unauthorised possession. Translated copy of the notice issued to Ram Murti, petitioner, reads as under: - “No. 27-P Dated 11.4.2008 Notice Forest Department, Punjab Office of the Forest Range Officer, Patiala. To Ram Murti Yadav S/o Sh. Ram Dev, Shivpuri Mandir Colony, Samania Gate, Patiala 9855620968 Subject: Notice for removal of unauthorised possession from the land of Forest Department. You are using the land belonging to the Forest Department, falling in strip Baradari Minor Km/RD near NIS, right side, measuring, length 5 metres, width 3 metres 15 sq. metres. By this act, you are violating the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.1996, 04.03.1997 and 29.10.2002 as well as the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therefore, by this notice you are advised to vacate the area in your unauthorised possession within 15 days of receipt of notice. In case, the area is required, you are permitted to take permission from the competent authority as per the instructions of the Government of C.R. No. 366 of 2009 (O&M) -4- India. If this is not done then action would be taken under the Rules by taking recourse to the legal remedy. Receipt be acknowledged. Sd/- Forest Range Officer, Patiala.” The reading of the notice, clearly shows that the defendant/respondents are proceeding against the petitioners in accordance with law, as a notice is issued to vacate the unauthorised possession within 15 days, with liberty to the petitioners to seek the use of the land in accordance with the instructions of the State Government, from the competent authority. In the notice it is clearly mentioned that in the event of failure to vacate the premises, legal action, in accordance with the law, would be taken. The suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioners prima facie is mis- conceived. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the grievance of the petitioners is not against this notice, but the act of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners forcibly, after issuance of notice, though necessary reply to notice has been sent by the petitioners, challenging the right to defendant/respondents to evict them, by raising no plea. Notice of these revision petitions was issued to the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has very fairly states, that the petitioners are not going to be dispossessed, except following due process of law. That C.R. No. 366 of 2009 (O&M) -5- is to say, that in the event of failure of the petitioners, to get the property allotted in their favour in accordance with law, or not vacating the property as directed, the respondents shall take recourse to their eviction either in the competent Court of jurisdiction/competent authority under the Public Premises Act, and the petitioners would only be dispossessed under a legal order passed by the Court/authority in accordance with law. In view of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners does not press these revision petitions. Dismissed as not pressed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 04, 2010 R.S.