PARAMJIT Vs. COMMISSIONER, HISAR DIVISION HISAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will decide the aforementioned writ petitions as similar orders have been impugned in all of them. The petitioners in all writ petitions have been ordered to be evicted in proceedings under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and appeal against the order of eviction has been dismissed.

(2.) For ease of narration and writing of judgment, facts are being extracted from CWP-4842-2015 titled as Surender Kumar Vs. Commissioner, Hisar Division and others.

(3.) Shish Ram son of Tirkha Ram was the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. He had been in possession of certain land owned by the provincial Government as 'gair marusi' even before Independence. Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 is on record as Annexure P-13 as evidence of the same. On 29/6/1977, the Government of Haryana executed a lease deed in respect of the same land in his favour for a period of one year and a copy of lease deed is on record as Annexure P-14. A perusal of this lease deed shows that land was leased out for experimental purposes. The Department of Agriculture was devising ways and means of increasing yield of the land and cultivation was to be done strictly under the guidance of the department. Subsequently, vide lease deed dtd. 2/3/1988, the Government of Haryana leased a large chunk of land in favour of the Haryana Agriculture University (HAU) for a period of 99 years. Out of this land, lease of 183 acres was w.e.f. 24/6/1976 and lease of 110.5 acres was w.e.f. 11/4/1980. The land measuring 110.5 acres was under tenants and included the land in dispute. It appears that HAU initiated proceedings for eviction of Des Raj son of Shish Ram under the Act which resulted in passing of order of eviction dtd. 26/3/1991. Appeal of the tenants, however, succeeded and thus, HAU filed CWP-14027-1991 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge vide judgment dtd. 28/11/1991. Meanwhile, Des Raj had filed a civil suit in the year 1981 against the State of Haryana and the HAU seeking a declaration that he is a tenant on the land in dispute on payment of 1/3rd batai and cannot be dis-possessed forcibly. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dtd. 8/10/1994 and a declaration was granted that Des Raj son of Shish Ram (represented by legal representatives) was tenant at will on payment of 1/3rd batai and could not be dis-possessed illegally and forcibly. It may be noted that in the written statement filed on behalf of HAU, it was pleaded that yearly lease deeds were executed in favour of Des Raj son of Shish Ram in Kharif 1980 and Rabi 1989. Appeal against this judgment and decree was dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 4/9/1997 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa. Prior to this decision, judgment dtd. 28/11/1991 passed in CWP-14027-1991 was challenged in LPA-248-1994 and other connected cases. The same was allowed vide judgment dtd. 5/12/1997 by returning a finding that the petitioner herein and other similarly situated persons possessed the status of 'tenant at will' by virtue of Civil Court decree. Thus, the finding of the learned Single Judge that they were in unauthorized possession was not sustainable in law. It was, accordingly, set aside and liberty was granted to the HAU to terminate the tenancy in accordance with law and then initiate fresh proceedings. It may also be noted at this stage that Regular Second Appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge has been dismissed vide judgment dtd. 26/11/2007 and the finding of 'tenancy at will' has become final.