C.W.P NO. 19209 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 19209 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 06.05.2009 Zila Parishad ...Petitioner versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. S. S. Khaira, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-Zila Parishad, Amritsar, seeks quashing of the order dated 30.09.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, whereby the appeal preferred by the Union of India/C.R.P.F against the order dated 30.09.2004 passed by the Collector, Amritsar ordering eviction of C.R.P.F from the Panchayat Bhawan Building as well as directing it to pay rent for the period from July, 1992 onwards, has been allowed and while setting aside the order of eviction, it has been directed that the Zila Parishad may seek payment of rent from the Government of Punjab through the department of Home. C.W.P NO. 19209 OF 2007 -2- The facts reveal that the Panchayat Bhawan building comprising two rooms, verandah, entrance hall and open space situated at Ajnala Road, Amritsar is owned by the Zila Parishad, Amritsar. During the period when the State of Punjab was in grip of terrorism, law and order crisis, the Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF) was deployed at various places at the instance of the State Government. The aforesaid building at Amritsar was also handed over to the CRPF authorities by the State Government. As no rent was paid to the Zila Parishad, nor it could get the premises vacated, the Zila Parishad filed an eviction petition under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. The Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar passed an order dated 30.07.2004 directing eviction of the C.R.P.F from the aforesaid premises as well as payment of rent by it from July, 1992 onwards. The said order has been reversed by the Appellate Authority under the Act after observing that possession of the premises was handed over to C.R.P.F by the State of Punjab through Home Department, therefore, unless an alternative accommodation is provided to C.R.P.F by the State Government, the eviction order cannot be passed. On this very premise, the Collector further directed that the rent can also be recovered by the Zila Parishad from the State Government only. Aggrieved, the Zila Parishad has approached this Court. C.W.P NO. 19209 OF 2007 -3- On 22.10.2008, the Home Secretary, Punjab was directed to examine the entire matter and submit a report. As the matter could not be resolved, a further direction was issued on February 06, 2009, that notwithstanding any stalemate between the C.R.P.F or the department of Home Affairs, Punjab, the issue regarding payment of arrears of rent be resolved. In deference thereto, it is stated by Mr.G.S.Attariwala, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from Head Constable Ajit Singh, that a sum of Rs.7,14,020/- has been paid to the Zila Parishad towards arrears of rent. As the receipt of payment could not be confirmed by learned counsel for the petitioner-Zila Parishad, it is directed that if not already made, the payment be released within a period of one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be right in contending that the Zila Parishad is forced to approach the Court/quasi-judicial authority time and again even for the payment of admitted rent. It is accordingly directed that henceforth the State of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs shall continue to pay the monthly rent to the Zila Parishad without prejudice to its right to seek reimbursement from the Union of India/C.R.P.F, if so permissible. As regards the eviction of C.R.P.F from the premises in question, I find no valid ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Appellate Authority. The C.R.P.F has been C.W.P NO. 19209 OF 2007 -4- deployed on the asking of the State Government who has also provided the required accommodation. The C.R.P.F can be asked to vacate the subject premises only if some other suitable premises is made available to it. In the larger public interest also, the C.R.P.F cannot be directed to vacate the subject premises unless an alternative site is provided to it. The State Government shall, therefore, make an effort to find out the alternative accommodation to enable the C.R.P.F to shift there and vacate the subject premises. Disposed of. MAY 06, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE