Civil Writ Petition No.21674 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21674 of 2011 Date of Decision:22.11.2011 Bhupinder Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sherry K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Gurudwara Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Payal(respondent No.3), owner of the land in dispute, moved a petition to recover the amount, in lieu of damages/rent on account of unauthorized use & occupation and for eviction in respect of the land in litigation, invoking the provisions of Section 6 of The Punjab Religious Premises and Land(Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), inter alia, pleading that the petitioners(herein) and the proforma respondent Nos.4 to 15 are in forcible, illegal use and unauthorized occupation of the disputed land and have not paid any amount for six crops in question. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, respondent No.3 sought the recovery of the impugned amount and their ejectment in this connection. 2. In the wake of notices under Section 4 of the Act, some of the petitioners and proforma respondents appeared, contested the petition and filed the Civil Writ Petition No.21674 of 2011 2 reply, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of respondent No.3. They have also denied his (respondent No.3) ownership of the land in dispute and other allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal. Since, the remaining occupants did not appear, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were ordered against them, as described in the order(Annexure P-2) of the Collector. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act (for brevity “the Collector), framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:- “i) Whether the applicant got right for recovery of lease/damages and rent of this land? Onus on applicant. ii) Whether the respondents are illegally cultivating this land? Onus on applicant. iii) Relief.” 4. Respondent No.3 in order to substantiate his claim, produced on record oral as well as the documentary evidence, but the petitioners and other proforma respondents did not brought on record any evidence to rebut the same, despite adequate opportunities. 5. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Collector decided both the issues in favour of respondent No.3 and passed a decree of recovery of `34,12,132/-, in lieu of unauthorized/illegal occupation/cultivation of the land in dispute by the petitioners and proforma respondents and passed the eviction order as well, by virtue of impugned order dated 24.05.2010(Annexure P-2). 6. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-2), Naginder Singh son of Karnail Singh(proforma respondent No.4) and others preferred the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, by means of impugned order dated 07.10.2010(Annexure P-3). 7. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present Civil Writ Petition No.21674 of 2011 3 writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-2 and P-3) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record and legal provision with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 9. As is evident from the record that, respondent No.3 was declared owner of the land in question through the medium of a decree dated 20.07.1989 (Annexure P-1) by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh. It is not matter of dispute that the order dated 30.04.1998 for the recovery of lease money for different crops of Kharif 1990 to Rabi 1992 was passed against the petitioners, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Above all, the orders were further upheld by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9717 of 2006(Ex.P-13). Another decree for recovery of the amount for the crops of the year 1997 to 1999, was also passed by the Assistant Collector on 25.01.2000 and the same has attained the finality. Meaning thereby, the right to recover the amount of respondent No.3 from the petitioners and proforma respondents, has already been repeatedly upheld/recognized even upto this Court in this relevant connection. 10. In this manner, the Collector after scrutinizing the un-rebutted oral as well as the documentary evidence produced on record by respondent No.3 in the right perspective, has recorded a finding of fact that respondent No.3 is the owner, whereas the petitioners and the proforma respondents are in unauthorized possession/occupation of the land in dispute. 11. Having completed all the codal formalities, after following the due procedure of issuing notices, providing adequate opportunities of hearing to the petitioners and proforma respondents and considering the entire un-rebutted oral as well as the documentary evidence, as depicted hereinabove, the Collector has rightly passed the impugned order(Annexure P-2). Not only that, order(Annexure Civil Writ Petition No.21674 of 2011 4 P-2) was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, by way of impugned order(Annexure P-3). 12. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders(Annexures P-2 and P-3) are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this regard. 13. Meaning thereby, the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, have recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, while exercising the limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 22, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No