HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5317 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 23.03.2011 **** Gurdev Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Deputy Director, Local Government, Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). This case is a glaring example of the misuse of judicial process by the petitioner and/or his predecessor-in-interest (late Karam Singh). (2). Land measuring 31 bigha 10 biswa situated within the revenue estate of Village Lehal, Tehsil and District Patiala owned by the State Government was placed at the disposal of Rehabilitation Department after the exchange of land with the Agriculture/Development Department. The mutations were duly sanctioned in favour of the Rehabilitation Department. The land was, however, unauthorisedly occupied by one Karam Singh s/o Nagahia Singh against whom, an ejectment petition under Section 4&5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (in short, ‘the Act’) was filed by CWP No.5317 of 2011.doc - 2 – the Rehabilitation Department. The Collector, Patiala Sub Division, Patiala passed an eviction order dated 22.06.1971 and the appeal preferred by Karam Singh was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.11.1971. Still aggrieved, the said Karam Singh approached this Court but his writ petition was also dismissed thereby attaching finality to the ejectment order. The possession of the land in dispute was thereafter taken by the State Government on 13.12.1971. The encroacher – Karam Singh allegedly re- occupied the subject land on 27.12.1971 and immediately filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the authorities. It appears that he got an ad interim injunction and dragged the suit till it was dismissed on 16.04.1979. Karam Singh went in First Appeal which was also dismissed on 29.01.1980. He thereafter filed Regular Second Appeal No.644 of 1980 which has been finally dismissed on 25.07.2007. (3). Karam Singh meanwhile, during the pendency of the above- stated appeal, died and was represented by his legal heirs. (4). The present petitioner is the nephew of Karam Singh who continued to occupy a part of the land notwithstanding the fact that Karam Singh – his predecessor-in-interest has already lost two legal battles. CWP No.5317 of 2011.doc - 3 – (5). The Municipal Corporation, Patiala who subsequently stepped into the shoes of State Government and in whose favour the mutation has already been sanctioned on 31.05.1999 has filed the execution proceedings under Section 11 of the Act. The said execution application has now been allowed vide the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 directing the Tehsildar to take possession of the land from the encroachers with the help of police force within 15 days. (6). The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court. (7). Several technicalities are sought to be pressed into aid, namely, that the Deputy Director is not the Executive Magistrate who can execute the eviction order under Section 11 of the Act and that the Municipal Corporation, Patiala is not the owner of the land in dispute. In my considered view both the objections are totally frivolous and devoid of any merit. The eviction order was passed by the Court of Collector, who is very much competent to execute its own orders. The impugned order has been passed by an officer while exercising the powers of Collector. No error of jurisdiction in this regard has been committed. (8). The petitioner’s claim that the Municipal Corporation is not the owner of the property is also baseless as the State Government has already transferred the land in favour of CWP No.5317 of 2011.doc - 4 – the Municipal Corporation, Patiala and in any case the eviction order passed against the predecessor-in-interest and/or the petitioner has already attained finality. (9). Dismissed. 23.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge