JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.2, i.e., Collector-Cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Rohroo, District Shimla (HP) issued a notice to the petitioner on 01.08.2006 under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). According to the notice, the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of Khasra Nos. 124, 135, 139, 140, 141, 146, 152, 161, 164 and 441, measuring 2-89-31 hects. The respondent No. 2 passed an order of eviction on 28.07.2008. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Division Shimla against the order dated 28.07.2008. The Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Division Shimla-2 dismissed the appeal on 21.12.2009.

(2.) MR. B.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that respondent No. 2 has not complied with mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act. He then contended that the petitioner has been served with a cyclostyle notice and there is no application of mind by respondent No. 2. He then argued that it was necessary for respondent No. 2 to form an objective opinion before issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner and specific grounds were required to be mentioned in the affidavits. In other words, his submission is that the notice was vague and sketchy and not capable of being replied.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.