IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.477 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2011 Shanti Lal ----Appellant Vs. The Commissioner, Hisar & others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order of eviction of the appellant under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971. 2. The Municipal Council, Tohana-respondent No.3 initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had illegally occupied and raised construction on public street. The appellant took the plea that he had got the premises under an agreement from one Balwant Singh and the site in dispute was not a public street. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the Collector came to the conclusion L.P.A. No.477 of 2011 that the site in question was a public street and the appellant had no right over the site in question. Accordingly, the appellant was ordered to be evicted. The finding recorded is as under:- “After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties, after perusing the documents available on record and after perusing the statements of the witnesses I have come to this conclusion that the construction made on the land in dispute which has clearly been made on the public street and this seems to be 15-20 years old. The respondent could not produce any proof with regard to the ownership of the above said land especially under the circumstances when the land in question is outside the Lal Dora and in the revenue record, the details of ownership is available. Due to lack of proof of ownership, I order the ejectment of the respondent from the unauthorized construction shown in the site plan situated at Bhuna Road, Tohana which is North 30 feet, South 32 feet 6 inch, East 13 feet 6 inch and West 13 feet 6 inch, without any kind of damages.” 3. Statutory appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Hisar upholding the finding of the Collector. The appellant filed writ petition in this Court. Learned Single Judge got demarcation conducted through revenue officer and found that the appellant was encroaching upon the public street. Accordingly, writ petition was dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 L.P.A. No.477 of 2011 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any document of title of the appellant or of Balwant Singh from whom he claims to have got possession. The demarcation report and the documents annexed thereto i.e. the site plan and photograph clearly show that the site in dispute is a public street. 6. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the finding of fact concurrently recorded by the Collector, the Commissioner and learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE August 19, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3