IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.8451 of 1991 Date of Decision : July 28, 2011. Raj Kumar and another .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.D.Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. -.- 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) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.8451, 12745 and 12746-A of 1991 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.8451 of 1991. The petitioners seek quashing of the action of the authorities of the Forest Department at Karnal, Government of Haryana in demolition of the shops/rooms/sheds constructed by them in khasra No.97/1 within the revenue estate of Indri, Tehsil and District Karnal. CWP No.8451 of 1991 [2] In sum and substance, the allegation of the petitioners is that since the eviction petitions under the Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery), Act, 1972 have been filed against them, their shops/rooms/sheds could not have been demolished pending those eviction petitions. In somewhat similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.5.1991 passed in CWP No.16232 of 1990 (Mohinder Pal and others versus The State of Haryana and others), held that pending the eviction petitions, the khokhas/shops/sheds, even if unauthorisedly constructed by the petitioners, could not have been demolished. Vide the aforesaid order, the similarly placed petitioners were held entitled to compensation/damages to the extent of Rs.15000/- + Rs.5000/- as costs, i.e., total Rs.20,000/-. The State of Haryana challenged those orders before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5174 and 5175 of 1993. The later appeal (State of Haryana and another versus Mohinder Pal and others) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 8.3.2000 holding as follows:- “This appeal is directed against the order made by the High Court in writ petition which was filed by the respondents complaining that the appellants have demolished the khokhas and other structures put on by them. Two applications were filed under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. During the pendency of those proceedings, the appellants took steps to eject the respondents from the land in question and demolished CWP No.8451 of 1991 [3] the khokhas constructed by them. The High Court proceeded on the basis that even Government cannot take law into their hands while dispossessing the petitioners but should have followed the due procedure prescribed by law and not doing so is contrary to rule of law and consequently, allowed the writ petition by awarding damages to the extent of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- by way of costs. However, while disposing of the writ petition, the High Court took care to protect the interest of the appellants to the extent of giving an opportunity to revive their application filed earlier or to file a fresh application and withdrawal of the earlier application will not come in their way. Learned counsel for the appellants very vehemently submitted that in the absence of any material as to the title of the respondents in respect of the property in question the High Court could not have granted relief in the manner it has been made, it is also pointed out that there are several other strong reasons for the respondents to have acted in the manner they did. Question of examining the title of the parties does not arise at all as admittedly respondents were in possession of the property in question and put up structures thereon. On that admitted position, High Court took the view that ejectment of the respondents forcibly without the recourse of law was not in due process. No exception can be taken to that view at all. In fact, this view is consistent with what has been stated by this Court in State of UP versus Maharaja Versus Dharmander Prasad Singh, etc. (AIR 1989 SC 997). Whatever may be the reasons the appellant had, they should have acted in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we maintain the order made CWP No.8451 of 1991 [4] by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.” In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent that wherever the shop/khokha/shed constructed by the petitioners was demolished by the respondents even when eviction proceedings were pending, the compensation/damages of Rs.15,000/- alongwith costs of Rs.5000/-, i.e., total Rs.20,000/- shall be granted for demolition of each such unauthorized construction. However, if the respondents have taken the plea that the petitioners were not occupation of the Government land or that no such construction was demolished by them, the Divisional Forest Officer, Territorial Karnal, is directed to hold an enquiry and determined this fact after hearing the parties concerned, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. In case it is found that the shops/khokhas/sheds in such like cases were also raised by the petitioners on Government land and the same were demolished pending eviction proceedings, they shall also be granted the due compensation as awarded above. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. July 28, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE