DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.9428 of 2008 (Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8845 of 2008 (Dr.Anand Kumar Goyal Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8849 of 2008 (Daya Kishan Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8852 of 2008 (Shiv Dayal Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8853 of 2008 (Smt.Saroj Rani and another Vs. State of Haryana and others), 8858 of 2008 (Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others) and 9088 of 2008 (Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others) as the common question of facts and law arises in these cases. The facts have been noted from CWP No.9428 of 2008. The petitioner purchased a shop bearing Municipal No.1374/4 Ambala Hisar Road, Kaithal as per the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The petitioner claims to be owner in possession of this site and the superstructures for last so many years after this Ambala Hisar road was constructed. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had erected this building and same is being used without there being any objection. The petitioner further claims to have obtained NOC from PWD Authorities and also has a sanctioned plan from the Municipal Committee to show in its support.

(2.) On the basis of demarcation report (Annexure P-9), respondent No.4 filed an ejectment petition on 9.12.2002 seeking ejectment of the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act. It is alleged that the shop in question and some adjoining shops were constructed on a land of PWD B&R Department, Haryana comprised in Khewat No.204. As per the petitioner, this demarcation report was prepared at the back of the petitioner without associating him or them. Petitioner would also allege that no notice under Section 4 of the Act was given to the petitioner nor was he impleaded in the petition as respondent. His tenant Sahara India Pariwar was impleaded as respondent, besides two other ladies, who had no concern with the shop. It is disclosed that Smt.Saroj is the owner of the adjacent shops, who had contested this ejectment application. The petitioner, however, went unrepresented and did not engage even an Advocate. It is only after the ejectment order that the petitioner has learnt about the same when the respondents have issued a notice for demolition as well. Lady Smt.Saroj and the other owners of the adjacent shops had contested the ejectment petition on the ground that the demarcation report was prepared at their back and they have not been associated with the demarcation in contravention of the reports issued by the Financial Commissioner in terms of the Rules made by Punjab & Haryana High Court. It is also alleged that the demarcation was not done in a proper manner inasmuch as no fixed three pucca points were marked for doing the demarcation.

(3.) The Department had examined two witnesses to prove its case. One of the witness stated that except for the demarcation report, there is no other evidence to show in support of the case of the respondents. The Kanungo, who had carried out the demarcation, admitted that those who were in an unauthorised possession were not impleaded and that he could not establish three pucca points for the purpose of carrying out demarcation. Still, only on the basis of demarcation report, the Collector had ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he had encroached the land of the Municipal Committee.