GURDEEP SINGH S/O. SH. RAHLA SINGH R/O. INDRI, TEHSIL INDRI DISTRICT KARNAL Vs. COMMISSIONER, ROHTAK RANGE, ROHTAK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of eviction passed under the Public Premises Act by the Estate Officer and which was confirmed in appeal, is in challenge on the ground that petition, which had been filed in the year 1984 came to be remanded on 06.05.1987 and when permission was sought by the Municipal Committee for introducing some evidence, the permission was granted on payment of Rs.200/ -as costs, but this petition was never prosecuted at all and a fresh petition came to be filed in the year 2002. Such a fresh petition was not tenable.

(2.) IF a petition under Public Premises Act came to be disposed of in the year 1987 on the remand, it was the duty of Collector to take up the case and conclude the enquiry. If it was not done and there was a compulsion for the Municipal Committee to file a fresh petition to pursue the remedy for an ejectment, it is fully justified, for there was no adjudication made again by the Collector, which could bar a fresh application. On the other hand, it seems from the records placed before this Court that the petitioner has been adopting several dubious means of continuing in possession through his immediate relatives. His father has filed a case claiming right to the very same property under a sale of the year 1955 but when it was contested by the Municipal Committee, the father of the petitioner had the suit dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioner's son filed a case again in respect of the very same property claiming that the property was purchased by his grand -father for Rs.80/ -in the year 1955 and his grandfather had executed a Will in his favour and that it took effect after his death on 21.1.1986. The Court found that the sale had not been established and it also found that the grandfather did not have a right to the property to make a transfer in his favour. On the other hand, the Civil Court found that the property had been taken on lease by the petitioner, who was the father of plaintiff in that suit and found that the continuance in possession after the period of lease and setting up the title against the Municipal Committee under a Will was false and proceeded to dismiss the suit. After these dismissals, a fresh petition has come to be filed when the Collector did not still trace the records and proceed with the enquiry. The petitioner is unable to show to me any right in the property nor is he prepared to join issues on the finding already rendered that the petitioner had taken the property on lease at some point of time and that he continued in possession without authority from the Municipal Committee, which had granted the lease in his favour. The identity of the property was also properly ascertained by a local inspection and the writ petition challenging the order passed is on a frivolous ground that fresh petition could not have been filed. There is no bar for ejectment for a public authority so long as there is no other order passed on merits that could determine the rights of parties.