C.W.P. No. 15317 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15317 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.05.2011 Sucha Singh .... Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present : Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3 AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure P-13) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Public Premises Act '). 2. The sequence of events and facts, leading to passing of the impugned order Annexure P-13 is that vide order Annexure P-7 passed by Collector on 16.7.1991, eviction of petitioner from land in dispute was ordered under Public Premises Act. Execution application filed vide order Annexure P-11 dated 27.2.2008 was dismissed as being barred by limitation, the same having been filed C.W.P. No. 15317 of 2010 2 after 16 years of passing of the order. 3. The Municipal Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi went up in appeal against order Annexure P-11, that has been allowed vide the impugned order dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure P-13) on the ground that no limitation for filing execution is provided. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that Limitation Act applies to such orders. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Municipal Committee contends that a civil suit was filed by the petitioner in which there was stay against the Municipal Committee. Even though application under the Public Premises Act was allowed, the stay continued. 6. Be that as it may, learned counsel contends that Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ashwani Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003(3) P.L.R. 235 has held that there is no limitation for implementation of order passed under the Public Premises Act. 7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The following needs to be extracted from the judgment rendered in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) :- 6. The warrant of possession having been issued in the execution proceedings initiated earlier to expiry of three years, as held on facts apart, we are further of the view that in a case, like the one in hand, there was no necessity at all to move an application for execution and if that be so, there would be no limitation for putting the C.W.P. No. 15317 of 2010 3 rightful owner in possession of a public premises occupied by an unauthorised occupant. Section 5 of the Act of 1973, which authorises the Collector to evict the unauthorised person, reads thus:- 5. Eviction of unauthorised persons :- (1) If, after considering the cause if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the Collector may make an order of eviction for person to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons, who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises or of the estate in which the public premises are situate. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days of its publication under sub-section (1), the Collector or any other officer duly authorised by him in this behalf may evict that person from and take possession of the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary”. C.W.P. No. 15317 of 2010 4 7. Under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5, the Collector, after following the procedure as envisaged therein, order eviction from the public premises whereas under sub-section (2) of Section 5 he alone or any other officer duly authorised by him is under a duty to evict the person and to take possession of the public premises. The very reading of sub-section (2) of Section 5 would make it clear that no application for execution as such is at all required to be filed, as the Collector is duty bound to evict the person in unauthorised occupation and take possession of the public premises. While doing so, he is authorised to even use such force as may be necessary. In some what similar situation, in Sulakhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 733 of 2002, decided on 3.9.2002 we have held likewise. The relevant observations in Sulakhan Singh's case (supra) read thus:- “The contention of the petitioner that the objections should have been considered and decided by the authorities under the Act in the manner as the objections are considered and decided under Order 21 Rule 97 to 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be accepted. These provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act”. 8. Same plea of limitation raised by the petitioner in the said case, pertaining to an application under the Act C.W.P. No. 15317 of 2010 5 of 1973, was under consideration by this Court.” 9. In view of the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court, I find that impugned order (Annexure -13) does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 10. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) 02.05.2011 JUDGE reena 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?