Punjab & Haryana HC in Tripta Devi v. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division & Ors. [22.12.2014]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 

CWP No.8172 of 1997 

Date of decision: 22.12.2014 

Tripta Devi                                                                                                      ....Petitioner 

Versus 

The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and others                    ....Respondents 

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 

Present: - Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. 

               Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab. 

           Ms. Sheetal Chandel, Advocate, and Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.08.1994 (Annexure P-9) passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hoshiarpur, exercising the powers of Collector under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act (for short 'the Act') and order dated 29.05.1996 (Annexure P-11) passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 - Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur, moved an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of unauthorized possession of the passage. Authorities after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner had encroached upon the passage which is a public street and demarcation was carried out at the spot after fixing the pucca points for determining the actual location of khasra numbers.

Earlier on 26.02.1998 a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order: -

"During the course of hearing, it was felt by us that in order to resolve the dispute relating to alleged unauthorised encroachment by the petitioner of the public path, it would be appropriate to seek fresh report from the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur by getting the land of the petitioner as well as public path demarcated afresh.

We, therefore, direct Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur to personally go to the spot and demarcate the land of the petitioner as well as the land covered by the public path and send a report to this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to furnish relevant papers to the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur within two weeks from today. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur for the purpose of carrying out the directions given by this Court.

Put up for arguments on 20.4.1998."

In pursuance of afore-mentioned order, demarcation report dated 29.10.1998 was submitted according to which also petitioner had encroached upon the public street.

Again on 26.11.2014 this Court directed the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur to carry out demarcation and submit report to this Court, which was carried out on 04.12.2014. In the instant demarcation report khasra numbers, demarcation of which was sought by the petitioner, have been measured after establishing the pucca points. Even dimensions of khasra numbers along with directions have been mentioned. As per this report, petitioner is in illegal possession of khasra No.111, which is a public street.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he intended to file objections to the demarcation report but since he has no instructions from the petitioner, he could not do so.

Be that as it may, fact remains that earlier demarcation was submitted on 29.10.1998 to which objections were filed by the petitioner. Present demarcation report is similar to the earlier demarcation report, therefore, there is no need to file fresh objections by the petitioner. This demarcation was ordered by this Court only for the satisfaction of the petitioner so that no injustice is caused to her, otherwise there was no need to order demarcation time and again. Petitioner has encroached upon the site which is a public street, as a result of which residents of the area face many types of problems. Otherwise also, it is the boundened duty of every resident of the area that they should not create any type of hindrance in smooth maintenance of the public passage and should not take recourse to the legal provisions to obstruct the public passages resulting into unwanted litigation.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 has specifically ordered that where public land has been unauthorizedly encroached upon the encroachers should be summarily evicted therefrom.

In view of the fact that petitioner has encroached upon a public street and she is liable to be evicted from the same, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

Dismissed.