SATISH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 6.8.2003 (Annexure P.7) passed by the Collector, District Patiala, which has been upheld vide order dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. At the instance of the illegal occupier of the shop in dispute Upkar Singh earlier filed CWP No. 313 of 2008 and the orders impugned in the instant petition were upheld and the Civil Writ Petition was dismissed on 14.1.2008 (Annexure P.9).

(2.) THE Collector in his order dated 6.8.2003 has concluded that the claim of the petitioner and that of Upkar Singh and others was liable to be rejected. The proceedings initiated against Upkar Singh and petitioner alongwith others under Section 4(1) of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery ) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act') have culminated in the finding that the petitioner who was the allottee and his successors have violated the provisions of the Act by transferring possession of the shop in question without prior permission of the Government. The claim of the petitioner that possession of the shop be returned to him because his predecessor Murli Dhar had entered into partnership deed with one Manmohan Singh who had subsequently delivered possession to Upkar Singh. It is admitted position that Upkar Singh has been in possession. It was further held that after more than 25 years the petitioner who is the successor of Murli Dhar cannot claim restoration of the possession of shop. It is after recording the aforementioned finding that the Collector has rightly observed that the order of eviction deserved to be passed in respect of petitioner, Upkar Singh and all others. The afore- mentioned order passed by the Collector has been upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. In the concluding para the following conclusion has been reached by him :

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel and perusing the impugned orders passed by the Collector and Divisional Commissioner, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition. There are categorical findings recorded by the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner showing that the petitioner could not have handed over possession of the shop in question without prior permission of the State Government. The sub letting of public premises is impermissible. It is also clear that the shop in question had changed many hands either at the instance of the petitioner or his so called partner Manmohan Singh and other illegal occupants like Upkar Singh and others. Murli Dhar father of the petitioner was allotted shop in 1975 and after some time had entered into partnership with one Manmohan Singh who transferred possession of the shop to Upkar Singh and Kuldip Singh. If father of the petitioner was in actual physical possession alongwith his partner Man Mohan Singh then it remains a mystery as to how Man Mohan Singh alone could transfer possession to other illegal occupier. It is in these circumstances that the acts of the petitioner and his father, the original allottee have become illegal. Section 3 of the Act declare such a person as unauthorised to occupy the public premises. Section 3 of the Act reads, thus :-