IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13569 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 03, 2010. Narinder Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.I.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner impugns the order dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Muktsar whereby he has been ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, as well as the order dated 20.5.2010 (Annexure P-2) whereby respondent No.3 has dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the above-stated eviction order. It stands crystalized from the impugned orders that earlier the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit claiming title qua the subject shop which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge and his appeal was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 21.1.2005 to the extent that the plea of ownership taken by the petitioner was turned C.W.P.No .13569 of 2010 2 down, though the Municipal Council, Muktsar was directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property except in due course of law. Thereafter only that the Municipal Council, Muktsar initiated these proceedings under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. Concededly, the Civil Court orders have attained finality as the same were never challenged before any Superior Court. The fact that the first Appellate Court in the civil suit permitted the Municipal Council to evict the petitioner in due course of law, amounts to upholding the title of the suit property in favour of the Municipal Council. The impugned proceedings were, therefore, very much maintainable at the instance of the Municipal Council. In this view of the matter, no interference with the impugned orders is called for by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. August 03, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE