JAIMAL RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER, FEROZEPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have a bunch of four petitions. The grievance is common. The petitioners allege that they have been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute without the grant of a due and reasonable opportunity. Counsel for the parties have referred to the factual position in CWP No. 17089 of 1998. The facts may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 with the allegation that Manphool-the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was in unauthorised occupation of the land. When the matter was placed before the Collector, he observed that notices were issued to the respondents but they had "refused to accept". Consequently, a proclamation was made. Yet, the respondents had not appeared. As a result, he proceeded ex parte and allowed the application vide his order dated August 1, 1996. Manphool-the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated May 11, 1998. Copies of the two orders have been produced as Annexures P-2 and P-4 with the writ petition. The petitioners allege that they as also their predecessor-in-interest have been in occupation of land for a long period. They could not have been ordered to be evicted without the grant of a due and reasonable opportunity. No notice was served. The petitioners never refused. On these premises, the petitioners pray that the impugned orders be set aside.

(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard.