PHULIA @ MANPHOOL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (wrongly mentioned in the petition as "Phulia alias Manphool son of Ram Dhan" instead of "Phulia alias Manphool son of Gopal son of Ram Dhan") under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 07.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3 Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Hisar, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Evicton and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has also been ordered to pay penalty of Rs.6,64,528/- for use and occupation of the unauthorized possession of the land in dispute and for quashing of order dated 26.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.2 Commissioner, Hisar Division, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the State of Haryana through Sub Divisional Officer, Irrigation Department, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar, filed an application under Section 4 of the Act before the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Collector, Hisar for eviction of the petitioner from the land measuring 41 Kanals 2 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 14//5/2(0-13), 6 (8-0), 7/1 (0-8), 24/2 (4-16), 25 (8-0), 15//10/2 (2-6), 11(7-7), 20/2 (4-16), 21/1 (4-16), situated at Village Sadalpur, Adampur, on the ground that the Government of Haryana is owner of the aforesaid land and the petitioner is in unauthorised possession. The land was given earlier on lease and the lease was extended upto 31.03.1978. After the expiry of lease, possession of the petitioner is unauthorized.

(3.) In pursuance to the application, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as per the rules and the provisions of the Act. The petitioner filed his written reply to the said notice. The petitioner has been trying to delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other. Out of the land measuring 41 Kanals 2 Marlas, in the year 1977-78, the land measuring 21 Kanals 17 Marlas was given to the petitioner Manphool son of Gopal and land measuring 19 Kanals 5 Marlas was given to Shawan son of Khiya in auction on lease. But on expiry of the lease on 31.03.1978, the petitioner had not handed over the possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner had earlier filed a Civil Suit claiming ownership of the land in question. Civil Court had recorded a finding that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession and he can be evicted in due course of law.