Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 03, 2009 Garib Dass ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 11053 of 2006 Baldev Krishan and another ........... Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ......... Respondents 3. Civil Writ Petition No. 17977 of 2007 Harpal Kaur ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 4. Civil Writ Petition No. 17978 of 2007 Bahadur Singh @ Harbans Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [2] 5. Civil Writ Petition No. 17979 of 2007 Balwinder Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 6. Civil Writ Petition No. 17980 of 2007 Kashmir Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 7. Civil Writ Petition No. 17985 of 2007 Mall Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 8. Civil Writ Petition No. 17986 of 2007 Tirath Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 9. Civil Writ Petition No. 17987 of 2007 Manjit Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [3] 10. Civil Writ Petition No. 17988 of 2007 Sukhdev Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 11. Civil Writ Petition No. 17989 of 2007 Balvir Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 12. Civil Writ Petition No. 17990 of 2007 Vinod Kumar ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 13. Civil Writ Petition No. 17991 of 2007 Mukhtiar Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 14. Civil Writ Petition No. 19110 of 2007 Santokh Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [4] 15. Civil Writ Petition No. 19115 of 2007 Kabal Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 16. Civil Writ Petition No. 19483 of 2007 Nafissa ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 17. Civil Writ Petition No. 19486 of 2007 Bakha Singh ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 18. Civil Writ Petition No. 19504 of 2007 Madan Lal ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 19. Civil Writ Petition No. 19513 of 2007 Laxmi Shah ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [5] 20. Civil Writ Petition No. 19531 of 2007 Surjit Kumar ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 21. Civil Writ Petition No. 2216 of 2008 Ram Lal ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 22. Civil Writ Petition No. 2221 of 2008 Chandi Ram ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents 23. Civil Writ Petition No. 2261 of 2008 Satu Ram ........... Petitioner versus Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur and others ............ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [6] Present : Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 17966, 17977 to 17980, 17985 to 17991 of 2007 Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP Nos. 19110, 19115, 19483, 19486, 19504, 19513, 19531 of 2007, 2216, 2221 and 2261 of 2008 Mr. Punit Jindal, Advocate and Mr. G.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.11053 of 2006 Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) In Civil Writ Petition No. 19484 of 2001 filed by Baldev Krishan and another, in public interest, a prayer for a writ of mandamus to get the encroachment over the land owned by the State Government removed was made. The petitioners' case in the said writ petition was that a large extent of land owned by the State Government earmarked for police department had been allowed to be encroached upon by some police personnel while some other part of the very same land was occupied by some other encroachers who have no right or title to stay in occupation. A Division Bench of this Court had taken note of that contention and passed an order on 16.11.2002 granting time to the respondents to submit a report as to the action taken by them for removal of the alleged encroachment. When the matter came up on 16.01.2003, the Court was informed that the encroachment made by the police personnel had been cleared and departmental proceedings initiated against them. Insofar as 54 private individuals who had similarly encroached upon the land were concerned, the Court was informed that action under the provisions of Sections 4 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [7] 1973 had been initiated against them before the Sub Divisional Magistrate- cum-Collector, Phillaur. Writ Petition No. 19484 of 2001 was, on that basis, disposed of by an order dated 12.02.2003 with the observation that the authorities would dispose of the pending cases for eviction of the encroachers expeditiously after affording to those in occupation, a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. In pursuance to the above directions, proceedings initiated against the unauthorized occupants culminated in the order of their eviction from the parcel of land in their respective occupation. Aggrieved by the said order, the occupants preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers of Commissioner, Jalandhar. The said appeal, it is noteworthy, also failed and was dismissed by an order that is impugned in the present writ petition. In Writ Petition No. 11053 of 2006 filed by Baldev Krishan and another, who were petitioners in the earlier writ petition, a prayer for mandamus directing the authorities to get the encroachment removed upon finalisation of eviction proceedings initiated by the authorities has once again been made. When the petition came up before us on 14.08.2008, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner-occupants that although the land in question belonged to the State Government and although there was no formal orders of allotment in favour of the petitioners nor was there any document of title justifying the occupation of the petitioners, yet the petitioners had been allowed to occupy the respective parcels of land as a measure of rehabilitation of all those who had been uprooted on account of submergence of village Mand Sholey situate in Sub Division Phillaur of Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [8] District Jalandhar. It was further argued that the petitioners had been allowed to raise construction over their respective parcels of land with the help of financial assistance granted to them by the Government. All this, according to the petitioners, rendered the orders of eviction passed against them unjustified as the petitioners could not be treated as unauthorized occupants of any public premises to justify their eviction from the same. On behalf of the respondent-State, it was argued that there was neither any rehabilitation scheme nor was any allotment made in favour of the petitioners who were unauthorized occupants of the government land from which they had to be evicted pursuant to the impugned orders of eviction. It was submitted that no financial assistance was ever extended to the petitioners, as alleged by them. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court was of the view that certain aspects of the controversy raised in the writ petition required to be further elucidated by the respondent on affidavit because neither the writ petitions nor the counter affidavits nor even the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Commissioner threw any light on the same. In order to avoid any injustice to the petitioners and to finally and effectually adjudicate upon the issues that fall for consideration, it was deemed necessary to direct the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, to hold an inquiry and report on affidavit as regards the following aspects:- i) Are the petitioners, in these writ petitions, resident of village Mand Sholey in Phillaur Sub Division of Jalandhar District. If so, did they own any property in the said village which was submerged on account of floods in River Sutlej requiring their rehabilitation. Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [9] ii) In case, answer to question No. (i) is in the affirmative, was there any rehabilitation actually carried out by the authorities. If so, what was the extent of land which was allotted or allowed to be occupied by each of the petitioners and also whether any financial aid was given by the government to the petitioners for raising constructions. iii) What is the extent of land actually in occupation of each one of the petitioners and what is the extent of construction raised by them over the same. iv) Are any persons other than those hailing from village Mand Sholey occupying any portion of land measuring 61 Kanals 4 Marlas comprising in Khewat No.1, Khatoni No. 1 in the revenue estate of village Panj Dhera, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. If so, who are these persons and what action has been taken against them for their eviction by the authorities. v) Have the authorities taken any action by way of removal of encroachment/ unauthorized occupation of such of the occupants as have suffered orders of eviction but have not challenged the same in this Court. If no such action has been taken, the reason for failure of the authorities to do so, may be indicated. vi) Is any of the unauthorized occupants of the aforementioned land a police official. If so, the number of such persons and their particulars, may also be Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [10] indicated. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, has accordingly held an enquiry and submitted a report on an affidavit sworn by him. A reading of the affidavit filed by the Commissioner shows that all the petitioners are residents of village Mand Sholey although none of them owned any property in the said village except one Santokh Singh s/o Hazara Singh, who was allotted provincial land by the State Government. The affidavit further states that during floods of 1988, the petitioners were evacuated from their village and given shelter in a relief camp established in the barracks of Police Academy, Phillaur. Subsequently, they were provided tents and shifted on the land in dispute as a temporary make shift arrangement. Neither any allotment of land was, however, made by the authorities nor any financial aid given to them for raising any construction over the same. The report also gives the details of the land in occupation of each one of the petitioners and the extent of the construction over the same. The report further states that no one except those hailing from village Mand Sholey is in occupation of land in Khewat No.1, Khatauni No.1 of Revenue Estate of Qilla Phillaur, the disputed area. It is also pointed out that those who did not challenge the eviction order are the poorest among all and had joint walls with those who had obtained the stay order from this Court. The authorities did not, therefore, execute the order of eviction even qua those who did not have the protection of any stay order, lest the stay orders were violated while resorting to removal of the encroachment. The Commissioner states that none of the occupants of the land is a police official. Having answered the queries raised by this Court, the affidavit goes on to state that Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [11] the land in question which was visited by the Commissioner belongs to Provincial Government and Police Training Academy, Phillaur, is shown as a cultivator thereof. A railway track, it appears, divides and separates the land in question from the rest of the Academy. According to the Commissioner, the land in question cannot be of much use to the Police Academy because of railway track separating the same from the major part of the Academy. The Commissioner has opined that keeping in view the sufferings of the inhabitants for the last 20 years and the fact that they do not own any land anywhere except one person, it would not be appropriate to evict the petitioners and make them homeless. The Government has, as a matter of fact, constructed pucca streets for the benefit of the petitioners and also given electricity connections to them. According to the Commissioner, the petitioners are ready to pay the price of the land in their respective occupation. The Commissioner has suggested a scheme of allotment which, in his opinion, would meet the ends of justice. The Scheme is as under: - “ 4. That in my personal opinion, those who are occupying less than 5 Marlas of land may be allotted land free of cost and those who are occupying more than 5 Marlas of land, may be asked to pay at the market price. Alternatively, those who are not ready to pay the market price they can be adjusted in 5 Marlas plot carved out from the vacant piece of land or leaving 5 Marlas of land with them and the rest of land may be got taken back by the Govt. from their unauthorized occupation. This would also be in consonance of the Govt. Policy to allot 5 Marlas of land to the homeless people (may be from the scheduled caste and weaker sections of the society). Relaxation Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [12] for those who do not belong to the S.C. Category in this case can be given by the Govt. because of special circumstances of this case. The only person who is having his own land and economically well of may be asked to pay market price of the land under his occupation. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court may issue directions as deemed fit. Para 3 and 4 above are my personal observations and not the part of reply to the observations of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court”. Mr. Saggar, learned counsel for the petitioner-occupants, submitted that the opinion given by the Commissioner fully supports the case of the petitioners who are ready to purchase the land in question on the terms considered appropriate by the government and on payment of charges towards price thereof. He urged that while the petitioners may not have lawful title to the property in their occupation and the right to continue in occupation, the fact that they are uprooted from their village and are poorest of the poor, homeless and landless is by itself a reason by the Government to take a sympathetic view of the matter and allow them to continue in occupation on the terms that the government may settle. It is urged that the petitioners are willing to approach the government with a suitable representation praying for their continuance and rehabilitation over the land in question which the Government could be directed to examine and to take a final decision on the subject before any steps are taken for executing the orders of eviction passed against them. Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel appearing for the State Government, submits that the factual aspect having been clearly stated by the Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [13] Commissioner and the land having never been allotted by the State Government by way of any formal letter or other instrument in favour of the petitioners, the orders of eviction are perfectly justified. He urged that insofar as prayer for rehabilitation is concerned, the petitioners are at liberty to file a representation to the Government, which the Government would examine and dispose of before any further action is taken in the matter on the basis of eviction orders passed against the petitioners. Mr. Jindal, counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11053 of 2006, is also agreeable to the writ petition being disposed of with a direction that the orders of eviction would not be executed unless the government disposes of the representations which the petitioners propose to make for their continuance over the land in question. In the circumstances therefore and keeping in view the submissions made at the bar, the report and the suggestions made by the Commissioner on affidavit, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction that the petitioners may make a suitable representation to the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home and Rehabilitation, within two months from today. In case the representation is made within the time hereby granted, the Government shall examine the same in the light of the observations made herein-above and the recommendations made by the Commissioner and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, but not later than six months from the date the representations are received by him. Pending disposal of the representations, the orders of eviction passed against the petitioner-occupants shall not be given effect to. It is made clear that in case the representations are eventually rejected and rehabilitation of the petitioners is considered not Civil Writ Petition No. 17966 of 2007 [14] feasible or not workable for any reason by the State Government, it would be free to take such action as is necessary to execute the orders of eviction passed against the petitioners. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. We make it clear that in case the Government formulates a Scheme, as proposed by the Commissioner and prayed by the petitioners for rehabilitation of the occupants, the benefit of the same shall be available not only to the petitioners but to all those who were uprooted from village Mand Sholey regardless whether or not they have filed any writ petition. It is also made clear that petitioners in Writ Petition No.11053 of 2006 shall be free to produce before the Government such material, as may be available with them, and as is relevant to the questions under consideration. No costs. ( T.S. THAKUR ) CHIEF JUSTICE 03.02.2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) khushbir JUDGE