JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 12.1.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, SAS Nagar (Mohali)-respondent No.2, whereby, the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the house wherein they are residing within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of the order. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners, over the house in question, by staying operation of impugned order dated 12.1.2018.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent No.3-Surjit Kaur filed an application for eviction of the petitioners from the house situated at Village Bhankharpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali before respondent No.2. It was stated by respondent No.3 in the application that she is an old lady of 70 years and her husband had expired on 15.9.2016. Petitioners, who are son and daughter-in-law of respondent No.3, respectively, are harassing her, not maintaining her and also living in the house in question illegally without having any rights. It is also stated in the application by respondent No.3 that the house in question was purchased by her husband 35/36 years back and the same was constructed by him only. Notice in the application was issued to the petitioners and the same was contested by the parties. Ultimately, the application filed by respondent No.3 was allowed by respondent No.2 vide its order dated 12.1.2018 and the petitioners were directed to vacate the house of respondent No.3 within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of the order, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the house in dispute is situated in red line area (lal dora) and there is no proof of ownership. It was purchased by father of petitioner No.1 and since the date of purchase, petitioners are residing there. Learned counsel further contends that father of petitioner No.1 has not made any Will in favour of respondent No.3 and in absence thereof, petitioner No.1 is also co-sharer in the house being the legal heir along with his mother, after the death of his father. Without having any document of ownership of respondent No.3 pertaining to the house in dispute, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that father of petitioner No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against petitioner No.1 but the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 30.5.2017. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that an application for eviction was filed at the instance of brothers of petitioner No.1, who were residing with respondent No. 3 as they wanted to grab the house by throwing out the petitioners from that house. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the petitioners are entitled for their share in the house in dispute and without any application of mind, the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2 while allowing the claim of respondent No.3.