H.P. UNIVERSITY Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner University has challenged the order Annexure:P -1 passed by the Commissioner -cum -Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh directing that taking a lenient/sympathetic view -, the petitioner herein should treat the respondent -Harbans Singh as a regular tenant of the building subject matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ˜Act) and the shop in question be kept out of acquisition proceedings under the Act.

(2.) THIS litigation has followed a tortuous course. By an order dated 15th July, 1996, in CWP No. 202 of 1996 titled Harbans Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others (in which the petitioner was also one of the parties), a direction was issued by a Division bench of this Court in the following terms: .......We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances on record, no order is required to be passed in this writ petition, save and except that the petitioner may make representation within a period of three weeks, which will be decided by the competent authority of the H.P. University within a period of four weeks thereafter by a reasoned order. It is further directed that the respondent -University will not dispossess the petitioner, except in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of.... -

(3.) I have reproduced this order in some detail as this forms the core of the defence put forth by the respondents herein who have pleaded in detail as to how the University has treated different persons similarly situated whose land was acquired by way of notification issued under Section 4 way back in 1996 and the respondent subjected to hostile discrimination. . It has been pleaded by the respondent -Harbans Singh herein that all other people have been left out of the acquisition proceedings and it is the respondent -Harbans Singh who has been asked to surrender the possession of the land though the area under his possession is negligible. He complains of discriminatory treatment. The University raises the issue of public interest as the land is required for building teaching/administrative blocks.