TEJA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Teja Singh in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed that the orders Annexure P.1 and P.2 of the Collector, Ferozepur, and the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, respectively, be quashed.

(2.) The relevant facts are that in April, 1976 the petitioner was served with a notice under section 7(2) of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') to vacate the land of the Forest Department in his possession. Actually this Act had already been repealed and replaced by the Act of the same nomenclature in July 1973, known as Punjab Act No. 31 of 1973. On the receipt of this notice the petitioner brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession of the said land. This suit was dismissed on the technical ground of non-service of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the State Government. It is plain that the suit was not dismissed on merits. The Collector thereafter passed an ex parte order on October 27, 1976 under section 7 of the Act (Annexure P.1) directing the petitioner to vacate the disputed land forthwith. The petitioner filed an application before the Collector for setting aside the ex parte order on the plea that notice had not been served on him before passing the order. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the order Annexure P.1 before the Commissioner. The Collector did not decide the restoration application. On the other hand he forwarded the same to the Commissioner as appeal against his ex parte order was pending before him. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal in default as also on merits on February 9, 1977 (Annexure P.2). He made no order in respect of the petitioner's application for setting aside ex parte order (Annexure p.1) which had been forwarded to him by the Collector.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned orders P.1 and P.2 and also his application for setting aside the ex parte order Annexure 1 had neither been decided by the Collector nor by the Commissioner. Return was filed only by the Collector who did not deny that the petitioner had filed an application before him for setting aside the ex parte order (Annexure P.1). He admitted that he did not decide this application and had forwarded the same to the Commissioner to be decided along with the appeal which had been filed by the petitioner against the order Annexure P.1. The Commissioner did not file any return and, therefore, it remains uncontroverted that the restoration application has not been disposed of by him.