IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8786 of 1992(O&M) Date of Decision : 18.05.2011 Surinder Kumar ... Petitioner versus Commissioner Ambala Division & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. **** Ajay Tewari, J.(Oral) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order evicting him under Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. Respondent No.2 – Municipal Committee, Ambala Sadar has filed an application for eviction from the land measuring 3.31 acres, which was given to the petitioner for agriculture purpose for one year and it was after the expiry of lease period, the eviction petition was filed. Originally, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte but later on petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. The learned Collector set aside the ex parte proceedings and permitted him to defend the case. By order dated 28.2.1986, eviction was allowed. After nearly 27 months, an appeal was filed in which learned Commissioner held as unmerited the contention that the notice was not given under Section 4 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act because it was given to the predecessors of the petitioner but thereafter, the petitioner contested the case. CWP No.8786 of 1992(O&M) -2- Further the contention that six months notice was required before termination of lease since it was agricultural land, was not accepted since as per law the Municipal Committee grant the lease only for one year and in the present case the statutory lease has expired. Learned Commissioner also held that the appeal was time barred. Before me, the main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Collector being void the appeal could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation since there is no limitation to challenge the order. In response thereto, Learned State counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in State of Punjab and otehrs versus Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 111 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that void order does not have to be quashed yet it would have de facto operation unless and until it is declared to be void or nullity by a competent body or court and therefore, the concept of limitation would necessarily come in. Beside this, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware about the order of the Collector. It cannot be lost sight of that now the petitioner has enjoyed the possession of land (originally let out for one year) for a quarter centrury. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any judgment contrary to the judgment cited by the learned State counsel. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. May 18, 2011 (Ajay Tewari) sonia Judge