IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5028 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 21, 2011. Satya Devi .....Petitioner versus Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.7.2008 passed by the Collector under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 ordering the eviction from a pakka shop constructed over an area measuring 32 square yards which is said to be a part of 4.30 acres land of the Military Farm, Pathankot, as well as the order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the learned District judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing his appeal against the above said eviction order. The eviction petition was filed on the premise that the subject property is an integral part of the land owned by the Army Authorities known as the Military Farm, Pathankot. On the contrary, the petitioner's case was that the subject land is owned by the Improvement Trust, C.W.P.No .5028 of 2011 2 Pathankot in terms of the notification dated 9.9.1969 (Annexure P-8) issued under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and she has been inducted as a tenant by the Improvement Trust and is paying rent regularly to the said Trust. It is true that the plea taken by the petitioner is fortified by a suit for permanent injunction filed by the Improvement Trust against the Union of India and the Army Authorities. However, the fact of the matter is that the authorities below have concurrently held on appreciation of evidence that the subject property is part of the Military Farm and vests in the Ministry of Defence, Union of India. The learned District Judge has categorically observed that there is no demarcation report or any other material on record to establish that the land in dispute is not a part of the Military Farm, Pathankot. The receipts issued by the Improvement Trust and relied upon by the petitioner have rightly been discarded for the reason that the same are not binding upon the Army Authorities. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was ever inducted as tenant by the Army Authorities. In these circumstances and having regard to the concurrent finding of fact, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders, except to observe that in case the Improvement Trust succeeds in the Civil Suit and if it is held that the subject property is owned by the Improvement Trust and not by the Army Authorities, the petitioner shall have a right to seek restitution of her possession and/or restoration of the tenancy rights against the Improvement Trust. Similarly, the impugned C.W.P.No .5028 of 2011 3 order shall not preclude her from seeking an alternative site from the Improvement Trust in accordance with law/policy. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. March 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE