Case: Rajkumar Devindra Singh &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Punjab &amp; Others

with what is unauthorised occupation of public premises. That section says: "For purpose of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any public premises: "(a) where he has whether before or after the commencement of this Act, entered into possession thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant; or "(b) where he, being an allottee, lessee or grantee, has, by reason of the determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant in accordance with the terms in that behalf therein contained, ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such public premises; or "(c) where any person authorised to occupy any public premises has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, (i) sub-let in contravention of the terms of allotment, lease or grant, without the permission of the State Government or of any other authority competent to permit such sub-letting the whole or any part of such public premises; (ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such public premises. "Explanation: For purposes of clause (a), a person shall not merely by reason of the fact tat he has paid any rent be deemed to have entered into possession as allottee, lessee or grantee." Section 4 (1) of the Act provides that, if Collector is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises situate within his jurisdiction and that they should be evicted, the Collector shall issue, in the manner provided in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), a notice in writing, calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made." 9. A person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of public premises for purposes of S. 3 (a) where he has, before or after the commencement of the Act, entered into possession thereof, otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant.The word thereof makes it clear that the person must have entered into possession of public premises before or after the commencement of the Act in order that he may be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation. If the appellants were in possession before the date of the sale of the property to the Government, it could not be said that the appellants entered into possession of public premises, for, at the time when they were in occupation of the property, the property was not public premises. Then it was either the joint family property or the property of the Maharaja, namely, Yadavindra Singh. The property was not public premises before it was sold to the Government. So, if the appellants were in possession of the property before it was sold to the Government, it could not be said that they entered into possession of public premises before or after the commencement of the Act and clause (a) of S. 3 of the Act cannot obviously apply and the appellants were not in unauthorised occupation of public premises within the meaning of clause (a) of S. 3.Therefore, the question is, whether the appellants were in possession of the property before it was sold to the Government. 10. It was alleged in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition that the appellants were in possession of the property in their own right for a number of years as sons of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh; paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit stated that the allegation is admitted to the extent that the appellants "are, at present residing in Colonel Mistrys House, Moti Bagh, Patiala. Rest of the para is not admitted". There was no denial of the allegation that the appellant were in possession of the property in their own right as sons of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh. It is difficult to understand how a Deputy Secretary to the Government of Punjab could have personal knowledge about the actual possession of the property in question before the sale deed was executed in favour of the Government. 11. The appellants were admittedly in possession of the property on the date of the issue of the impugned notice. The respondents had no case that the appellants entered into possession of the property after the date of the sale. We are not very much concerned with the title under which the appellants were in possession; what is really relevant for this case is whether the appellants were in possession of the property before the date of sale to the Government. We think that the case of the appellants that they were in possession of the property before it was sold to the Government must be taken as true. The learned single Judge also appears to have proceeded on the same basis. 12. Clause (b) of S. 3 of the Act speaks of an allottee, lessee or grantee, who has, by determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant, in accordance with the terms in that behalf, ceased, whether before or after the commencement of the Act to be entitled to occupy or hold such public premises. It is clear that for this clause to apply, the person must be an allottee, lessee or grantee from the Government. We do not think that this clause can apply in this case as the appellants were not allottees, lessees or grantees of the Government. 13. Clause (c) of S. 3 of the Act can obviously have no application to the case. 14.The appellants, were not, therefore, in unauthorised occupation of public premises within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act. It is only if the appellants were in unauthorised occupation of public premises that the Collector would get jurisdiction to issue a notice under S. 4 (1) of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the notice was issued without jurisdiction and it has to be quashed and we do so. 15.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]A person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of public premises for purposes of S. 3 (a) where he has, before or after the commencement of the Act, entered into possession thereof, otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant.The word thereof makes it clear that the person must have entered into possession of public premises before or after the commencement of the Act in order that he may be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation. If the appellants were in possession before the date of the sale of the property to the Government, it could not be said that the appellants entered into possession of public premises, for, at the time when they were in occupation of the property, the property was not public premises. Then it was either the joint family property or the property of the Maharaja, namely, Yadavindra Singh. The property was not public premises before it was sold to the Government. So, if the appellants were in possession of the property before it was sold to the Government, it could not be said that they entered into possession of public premises before or after the commencement of the Act and clause (a) of S. 3 of the Act cannot obviously apply and the appellants were not in unauthorised occupation of public premises within the meaning of clause (a) of S. 3appellants, were not, therefore, in unauthorised occupation of public premises within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act. It is only if the appellants were in unauthorised occupation of public premises that the Collector would get jurisdiction to issue a notice under S. 4 (1) of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the notice was issued without jurisdiction and it has to be quashed and we do so.