CWP No.301 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.301 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: March 23, 2011 THE GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE ...PETITIONER KORIANWALI, DISTRICT FEROZEPUR VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER, FEROZEPUR DIVISION ...RESPONDENT FEROZEPUR AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. PREM NATH AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MS. REETA KOHLI, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition is at the instance of the Panchayat whose action for ejectment filed under Section 4, 5 & 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 on the basis of the lease been granted in favour of one of the respondents for one year commencing from 22.4.85 ending on 15.5.86. The petition was filed on 15.9.86, after the completion of the period mentioned. The petition was dismissed on the ground that amongst the respondents, they were father and son and the father also seemed to be in possession alongwith the son and unless the lease property had been granted also in favour of the father, the action could not have been initiated. I find this logic wholly faulty. If the lease in favour of the son had expired and his occupation became CWP No.301 of 1990 -2- unauthorized, a fortiorari, the possession by the father without any document cannot be any the less unlawful or unauthorized. It cannot make a difference that a lease had not been made in favour of the father for, without even a lease his possession is worse. An action for eviction is possible at the instance of the Public Authority against any person who continues in unauthorized occupation for ownership of the property in the Panchayat was itself is not in question. The impugned order is wholly erroneous and it is quashed. There shall be an ejectment of the respondents from the premises in question in favour of the petitioner forthwith. There shall also be ascertainment of mesne profits in the same case number before the Estate Officer and it shall be undertaken in accordance with law. 2. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. March 23, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE