MOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the present writ petition, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the quashing of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? notice dated 5.8.1998, issued by the Collector, Kullu in Case No. 4 of 2002 (Annexure P-3), order dated 29.9.2004 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Collector, Kullu in the aforesaid case No. 4 of 2002 and order dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi in appeal against the order Annexure P-8, besides seeking direction to the respondents not to take any further action against the petitioner under the provisions of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and not to evict him from the land measuring one Biswa, 8 Biswansis, bearing Khasra No. 4434/1, situate in Phati and Kothi Naggar, Tehsil and District Kullu, except by due process of law.

(2.) A notice was issued under the Act to the petitioner on 5.8.1998 (copy Annexure P-3), calling upon him to show cause why he should not be evicted from the land, described hereinabove, as he was in unauthorized occupation thereof within the meaning of the Act. This notice was issued by the Collector, District Kullu on the basis of an application, filed before him by respondent No. 2. In the application respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner had made encroachment upon the above described land, which belonged to it, but was managed, supervised and possessed by the State Government. The petitioner, it appears, took the stand that his grand-father had occupied the land, in question, some-time in the year 1965 and constructed a structure thereon and had been running a small shop in that structure till his death, which took place in the year 1989 and that thereafter he (the petitioner) himself had been in occupation of the land and the structure standing thereon. He alleged that his and his grand-father's possession had been open, hostile, uninterrupted and continuous and thus he had acquired title by prescription. He also pleaded that the premises were not public premises within the meaning of the Act and hence the Collector did not have the jurisdiction.

(3.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 is not an Improvement Trust and hence the impugned orders of the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.