KHALSA MOTOR Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s Khalsa Motor Co., Hissar, the unsuccessful plaintiff, has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated October 15, 1988 affirming on appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated November 20, 1986.

(2.) The facts - The plaintiff sought declaration to the effect that the land measuring about 450 Sq. Yards described as 'ABCDEF' in the site plan attached with the plaint and situated in the revenue estate of Hissar between Gurdwara Siri Guru Singh Sabha and Talaqiu Gate, Hissar-Sirsa Road (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed property') is owned by it and a perpetual injunction was sought against the defendant-respondents from dispossessing it from the disputed property illegally. The disputed property was initially taken on lease by the plaintiff from Municipal Committee, Hissar (respondent No. 2) and it paid rent to the lessor till 1972. The plaintiff made improvements on the disputed property by spending huge amount. It installed a Petrol Pump, an HSD Pump, Sale Room etc. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated September 25, 1970, passed under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (for short, ' the Act') at the instance of respondent No. 1, directed the plaintiff to vacate the land measuring 18'x 18' = 324 Sq. Ft. (petrol pump office ) and 21' x 30 1/4' = 646 Sq. Ft. plus 12' x 23 1/4' = 279 Sq. Ft. plus 10'x 10 1/2 = 105 Sq. Ft. Total 1030 Sq. Ft. P. Rooms within 30 days from the announcement of the order. The order of Collector, Hissar was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal. The vires of this Act was also unsuccessfully challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 5261 of 1982 and the Special Leave Petition in the apex Court was dismissed as withdrawn since the plaintiff wanted to move the High Court for review of the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3394 of 1970. The disputed property did not vest in respondent No. 1 and Collector, Hissar had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 4 of the Act since the disputed property was not public premises as defined in the Act.

(3.) The defendant-respondents controverted the pleas made in the plaint and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck :-