LAWS(P&H)-1986-5-132

MURTI SHRI HANUMANJI MANDIR BAWA SURAJGIR VILL DERA Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY REHABILITATION-CUM-SETTLEMENT COMM HR

Decided On May 13, 1986
MURTI SHRI HANUMANJI MANDIR BAWA SURAJGIR VILL DERA Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY SECRETARY REHABILITATION-CUM-SETTLEMENT COMM HR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the proceedings which culminated in the passing of the final order dated December 4, 1978 (Annexure P.3) by the Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana. These proceedings deal with the right of the petitioner to acquire the evacuee land (detailed in that order) under the Press Note dated May 17, 1962. This Press Note is referred to and reproduced in an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bishan Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, 1973 PunLJ 183. The material part of it lays down that the surplus rural evacuee properties purchased by the State Government from the Government of India with effect from April, 1, 1961, may be transferred at the fixed prices to the persons who fell in the following categories, i.e., lessees, tenants and other occupants on the terms and conditions set out below subject to the condition that these lands not be required for allotment to unsatisfied claimants :-

(2.) The Press Note lays down in no uncertain terms that persons whose possession can be regularised or are entitled to acquire the title to the land in their possession, have to be ''unauthorised occupants''. Thus the Press Note itself envisages that there is a clear distinction between 'possession' and 'occupation' and it is so in the light of the ordinary dictionary meaning of the two words also. 'Occupation' essentially means holding physical possession of a property. Thus, whereas an occupant is necessarily in possession of a property, a person in possession of the same may not be in its occupation. 'Possession' in law means physical as well as constructive possession. In the instant case the petitioner may be in constructive possession of the property but still it cannot claim to be in occupation of the same. In view of this I find no infirmity in the impugned order Annexure P.3.

(3.) Thus this petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.