IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14631 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.12.2009 Kirtan Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of five petitions bearing CWP Nos. 14631, 14632, 14639, 14654 and 14665 of 2009 as the similar orders have been assailed therein. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 14631 of 2009. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 31.5.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Nabha ordering ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute as well as the order dated 15.10.2008 (Annexure P-3), whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, on appeal, upheld the same. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (in short “the Act”) before the Collector-cum-Executive Engineer, Lehal CWP No. 14631 of 2009 -2- Division, IB, Patiala for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute on the ground that the land measuring 12-03 Bighas being public premises belonged to the department as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97 and that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the same. The authorities below, on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not prove his ownership over the premises in dispute and that it was public premises and, therefore, ordered eviction of the petitioner therefrom. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not have been ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute as he was not in unauthorized possession of the premises in dispute under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the fore-fathers of the petitioner were in occupation of the premises in dispute and the same having vested in the Government after they had come into possession, the provisions of the Act were not applicable and the recourse taken by respondent No.3 could not entitle them to take possession under the aforesaid Act. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Devindra Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and others, AIR 1973 SC 66 in support of his submission. A perusal of the orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) impugned herein shows that the only plea which was raised by the petitioner before the authorities below was that he and prior to him his predecessors-in-interest were owners in possession of the premises in CWP No. 14631 of 2009 -3- dispute and on that ground the recourse to the provisions of the Act could not have been taken up by the State. This plea of the petitioner was rejected by the authorities below on two grounds; firstly, that no evidence was produced regarding his ownership and possession of the land in dispute from the time of his ancestor and secondly, that the civil suit in which the State of Punjab was also a party, the finding was recorded that he had not become owner of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. On a specific query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner or his predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the property in dispute prior to the property came to be vested in the State of Punjab, he could not refer to any evidence or material on record to substantiate his aforesaid plea. Therefore, the law relied upon by the learned counsel in Raj Kumar Devindra Singh's case (supra) does not advance the case of the petitioner. In view of the findings recorded by the authorities below and also that of the civil court regarding the ownership of the petitioner, there is no illegality or perversity in the orders impugned herein which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, there is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. December 3, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14632 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.12.2009 Shamsher Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This writ petition is dismissed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 14631 of 2009 (Kirtan Singh v. State of Punjab and another). December 3, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14639 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.12.2009 Amrik Singh and another ....Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This writ petition is dismissed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 14631 of 2009 (Kirtan Singh v. State of Punjab and another). December 3, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14654 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.12.2009 Dalbara Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This writ petition is dismissed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 14631 of 2009 (Kirtan Singh v. State of Punjab and another). December 3, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14665 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.12.2009 Nishan Sahib Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This writ petition is dismissed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 14631 of 2009 (Kirtan Singh v. State of Punjab and another). December 3, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE