KANSHI RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the orders dated February 15, 1989 and March 28, 1989 passed by respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively.

(2.) Facts first : Respondents No. 3 initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 4 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the land in dispute was leased out to the petitioner and on the expiry of the lease period, he did not vacate the same. The authorities under the Act negatived the claim of the petitioner that the disputed land did not vest in respondent No. 3.

(3.) The approach of respondents No. 1 and 2, on the face of it, is perverse. They did not give a positive decision that the disputed land vested in respondent No. 3 and, if so, under what Act. In the Jamabandi for the year 1985-86, in the column of ownership it is recorded thus: