WRIT PETITION 5837 OF 2006 on 30 August 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.5837 OF 2006DATE OF DECISION : 29th JULY 2013

Krishan Chand & others

…. Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab & others

…. Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * * *

Present :Mr. R. S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Additional Advocate General,Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3.

Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for respondent no.4.

* * * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

In this civil writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India, petitioners, who are legal heirs of Vidya Wati,have assailed order dated 30.08.2005 Annexure P-9 passed by respondentno.2-Deputy Commissioner exercising the power of Commissioner.

Respondent no.3-Managing Officer-cum-Tehsildar (Sales)filed petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises andLand (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 before Sub-DivisionalMagistrate-cum-Collector for eviction of respondent no.4-Piara Singhalleging that he was in unauthorized possession of 4.92 marlas land which was evacuee property and, therefore, became property of State ofPunjab in view of package deal. The Collector dismissed the saidpetition vide order dated 31.03.2005 Annexure P-8. However, in appeal,respondent no.2 has held the property to be evacuee property andtherefore, property of State of Punjab being package deal property.Petitioners have, therefore, filed this writ petition to challenge the saidfinding of respondent no.2.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thecase file.

Civil suit filed by Vidya Wati predecessor-in-interest of thepetitioners against respondent no.4-Piara Singh for possession of 4marlas land was decreed by the Civil Court vide judgment and decreedated 27.01.1990 Annexures P-1 and P-2 and upheld in first appeal byfirst Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.1992Annexures P-3 and P-4. Vidya Wati filed execution petition forexecution of the said decree. In execution proceedings, State of Punjab-respondent no.1 as well as Piara Singh-respondent no.4-judgment debtorfiled objections alleging that the suit property measuring 4 marlas wasevacuee property and therefore, it had become property of State of Punjabbeing package deal property. The said objections were dismissed by theexecuting Court vide order dated 05.03.2003 Annexure P-7 holding thesuit property to be not evacuee property. The said finding has attainedfinality qua State of Punjab as it did not prefer any appeal against orderAnnexure P-7 passed by the executing Court. Consequently, the eviction petition filed by respondent no.3 was rightly dismissed by the Collectorvide order dated 31.03.2005 Annexure P-8. In view thereof, orderAnnexure P-9 passed by respondent no.2 holding the suit land to beevacuee property is patently illegal and cannot be sustained.

Before parting with the order, it may be noticed thatrespondent no.4-judgment debtor had preferred appeal against orderAnnexure P-7 passed by the executing Court. The said appeal wasallowed by lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.03.2006Annexure R-4/1. However, CR No. 1573 of 2006 titled Kishan Chand &others versus Piara Singh and another preferred by the petitioners hereinagainst said judgment Annexure R-4/1 has been allowed by this Courtvide order of even date. In view thereof also, the instant writ petitiondeserves to be allowed. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is allowedand impugned order Annexure P-9 passed by respondent no.2 is quashed,thereby restoring order Annexure P-8 passed by the Collector.

29[th] July, 2013 ‘raj’

(L. N. MITTAL)JUDGE