IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: L.P.A. No.134 of 2009 in CWP No.2505 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : May 14,2009 Parbhati & another .......Appellants versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.S. Wasu, A.A.G., Haryana for the State. Mr. S.N. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. As per the facts of the case, the property, in question, belongs to the Rehabilitation Department. The petitioners, herein, tried to get it transferred under the policy instructions of the State Government dated 01-11-2001. In order to come within the scheme for transfer of the land in their name, the petitioners represented themselves as `unauthorized occupants' and by representing themselves as `unauthorized occupants' of the property, applied for transfer of the same under the policy instructions of the State Government in the Rehabilitation Department dated 01-11-2001. However, they lost uptil the Hon'ble Supreme Court. L.P.A. No.134 of 2009 in CWP No.2505 of 2008 -2- The said land now stands auctioned. The possession was, therefore, required to be delivered to the auction purchaser. The Naib Tehsildar (Sales) Narnaul issued the warrant of possession under form No.S-XVI on 14-09-2007. After having lost upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court, they raked up the matter afresh and have found another new way to remain in possession. The appellants have now raised a new plea of tenancy to retain the possession. In order to defeat the warrant of possession, they have challenged the same on the ground that they have a right to remain in possession till they are evicted by following a procedure in accordance with law as they are tenants in possession. Learned counsel for the appellants although admitted that their stand, while seeking allotment of the same land, in dispute, was based on their being unauthorized occupants, he, however, defended the change of the stand and argued that it was the settled position of law that “once a tenant always a tenant”. It was further argued that in the earlier case, the only question involved was regarding their entitlement to the purchase of land, in dispute. Having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any ground to interfere or set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is an admitted position that the appellants were earlier seeking allotment of the land as per the policy by representing themselves and claiming themselves to be `unauthorized occupants'. The appellants have lost their case upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The land, in dispute, stands auctioned. L.P.A. No.134 of 2009 in CWP No.2505 of 2008 -3- Having lost, the appellants are challenging the order directing delivery of possession on the ground that they were tenants and hence, they cannot be evicted except in due course of law. It is obvious from the above that the appellants have taken the plea of being tenants only to safeguard their possession which they failed to retain in the previous litigation. They cannot change their stand on every new round of litigation. They are changing their stand as per their convenience. In fact, their only effort is to retain the possession by hook or crook. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 14, 2009 gurpreet Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No