MOHAN SINGH Vs. LT GOVERNOR HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question, in this writ petition filed by forty-five stall-holders of village Pandoh,Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, is whether section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Himachal Act), is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances in which this question has arisen are as under :-

(2.) The Deputy Commissioner, Mandi had issued notices to the petitioners to demolish their stalls and to vacate the sites thereunder as they had illegally constructed the stalls on Government lands. The petitioners filed a writ petition, challenging the validity of the notices on various grounds. One of the grounds was that Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1958, under which according to the petitioners the Duputy Commissioner appeatred to have initiated action against them was unconstitutional. In the return, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that action against the petitioners had been initiated under section 163 of the Himachal Act, and not under Section 5 of the Punjab Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act. Thereupon, the petitioners put in an application, under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, for amendirg their writ petition by including grounds, challenging the validity of I the action taken under section 163 and also the constitutional validity of the section itself. The application was allowed by an order of the Court dated 30th November, 1967. The allegations, in the amended writ petition, are; The Beas-Sutlej Link Project is being executed at village Pandh for the last two and a half years. A market has coma into existence at the site of the Project to cater for the needs of various workmen employed in the project. The market has been constructed on the lands which are vested in the Gram Sabha Majhwar and as such are under the control and supervision of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have constructed stalls on such lands. The leases of the lands to the various stall-holders were regularised by the aforesaid Gram Sabha and rent is being charged from the petitioners. The State Government or the Union of India has no right, title or interest in the . lands and has, therefore, no authority to eviet the petitioners from the lands. The notices, issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioner, under section 163 of the Himachal Act, for demolition of stalls and for vacating the sites, are illegal. The lands in occupation of the petitioners are village site and the provisions of the Himachal Act are not applicable to such lands. The entire proceedings have been taken behind the back of the petitioners and are thus in violation of the principles of natural justice. The lands, in dispute, are public property and vest in the Gram Panchayat and for that reason also, section 163 of the Himachal Act is not applicable. Section 163 of the Himachal Act confers an unguided direction on the Revenue Officer to proceed or not to proceed under that section and thus enables the Revenue Officer to discriminate between persons situated in the same position and in alike circumstances, by exercising his powers under that section against some and proceeding by way of suit against others as both the remedies, under the section and by way of suit are available to the Government.

(3.) The petitioner pray that a writ or order or direction be issued against the respondents prohibiting them from damolishing the stalls or otherwise dispossessing the petitioners from the lands, in dispute.