C.R.6216 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.6216 of 2008 Date of decision:- 14.12.2009 Rohtash petitioner vs State of Haryana and others Respondent Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate. Mr. RKS Brar, Addl.A.G.Hry M.M.S.BEDI,J. Vide impugned order dated 2.9.2008, the Commissioner, Hisar Dvision has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner praying appointment of guardian of proforma respondents 2 to 4 being of unsound mind, as per the report of the Medical Baord, while affirming the similar order passed by the Collector, Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proceedings have been initiated under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,1972 ( for short ' the Act') against the heirs of Bansi,namely, Rajinder and Pittu, who are of unsound mind, as such an inquiry should be conducted so that a guardian be appointed to watch their interests as per the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 CPC. On the other hand, learned State counsel has contended that the application has been filed merely to delay the proceedings under the Act. Despite the order passed by the Collector, the above said two persons were not brought before the Medical Board for grant of certificate of being C.R.6216 of 2008 2 unsound mind. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without expression of any opinion whether the provisions or Order 32 including Order 32 Rule 15 CPC being applicable to the proceedings before the authorities under the Act and without entering into the controversy whether the two persons, mentioned in the application, filed by the petitioner, who are of unsound mind, I am of the opinion that the summary proceedings under the Act cannot be unnecessarily prolonged on the ground that one of the legal heirs, of allegedly unauthorized occupant of the land, are of unsound mind or not. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that hence forth the sons of Bansi, Rajinder and Pittu will be represented by their natural guardian Vidaya Devi, widow of Bansi, whose interests prima facie do not appear to be contrary to the interests of the above said alleged persons of unsound mind. Vidaya Devi is already impleaded as a party as legal heir of Bansi and is already contesting the proceedings under the Act. There does not appear to be any requirement for holding an inquiry regarding Rajinder and Pittu, being persons with unsound mind, especially when another son of Bansi is claiming them to be of unsound mind. The court has got an authority to appoint a court guardian in case it is brought to the notice of the court that any litigant is minor or is of unsound mind. In case Vidaya Devi is not able to watch the interest of the above said two persons, Rohtash, the present petitioner, can be appointed by any of the revenue authorities to be guardian or next friend of the above said alleged persons of unsound mind. The parties are directed to appear before the revenue authorities under the Act on the next date of hearing. In case no date is fixed after the stay order was passed by this court, the parties are directed C.R.6216 of 2008 3 to appear before the Collector, Hisar on 18.1.2010 for further proceedings. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. December 14 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE