TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Collector, Hissar under the 1959 Act wherein it was stated that respondent No. 1 is in unauthorised possession over an area measuring 1354 sft. in Kila Stone 102/2, Delhi-Hissar Road and that the said land is in the ownership of the State Government and it was prayed that respondent No. 1 may be evicted from the said land forthwith in public interest. On the said application a show cause notice was issued to respondent No. 1 and after hearing respondent No. 1, the Collector. Hissar passed an order dated September 25, 1970 wherein it was held that respondent No. 1 has encroached upon PWD land and respondent No. 1 was ordered to vacate the land in dispute measuring 1354 sft. within 30 days of the date of receipt of the said order. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition (C.W. No. 3394 of 1970) in the High Court of Punjab Haryana wherein he challenged the validity of the provisions of the 1959 Act as well as the order of the Collector, Hissar dated September 25, 1970. During the pendency of the said writ petition in the High Court the Haryana State Legislature enacted the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction Land Recovery) Act, 1972(hereinafter referred to as the ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd marked A B C D E F in the site plan attached to the plaint measuring about 450 sq. yards situated in the Revenue Estate of Hissar, between Gurudwara Siri Guru Singh Sabha and Talaqi Gate, Hissar-Sirsa Road is of the Abadi Deh Hissar on which he has his possessory title as owner and the defendants have no concern with it nor have any title on it. In the said suit respondent No. 1 also sought consequential relief of grant of permanent injunction against the defendants that they should refrain from dispossessing respondent No. 1 from the premises in dispute. The said suit was contested by respondent No. 2, Municipal Council, Hissar, which had been impleaded as a defendant in the said suit, and had filed a written statement wherein it was stated that the land in dispute is part and parcel of the P.W.D. Road, National Highway No. 10, i.e. Delhi-Multan Road, and that the Municipal Council has been joined unnecessarily. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants an objection was raised regarding jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit in View of Section 15 of the 1972 Act and it was also submitted that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No. 1 against the said order has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Hissar by his order dated October 7, 1982 and the writ petition (C.W. No. 5268 of 1982) filed by respondent No. 1 to challenge the said order of the Commissioner has been dismissed by the High Court and the special leave petition filed against the said decision of the High Court has also been dismissed by this Court. The Sub-Judge further held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar imposed by Section 15 of 1972 Act and further that the suit was barred by limitation. 5. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Hissar, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hissar by judgment dated October 15, 1988. The Additional District Judge affirmed the finding recorded by the Sub-Judge that the premises in dispute belongs to the State Government and is a public premises in view of the 1972 Act and that the order of Collector, Hissar, dated September 25, 1970 is legal and valid. The Additional Judge held that the suit of the respondent No. 1 is barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year 1972 and never surrendered the possession of disputed property to the Municipal Committee, Hissar, before asserting his title and that respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to urge that the Municipal Committee is not the owner of the disputed property. The High Court, therefore, held that the order of Collector dated September 25, 1970 is illegal and void and it granted a declaration in favour of the respondent No. 1 to the effect that the Public Works Department, Haryana, will not be entitled to dispossess respondent No. 1 from the disputed property in pursuance of the order of the Collector dated September 25, 1970 passed under the 1959 Act and appellant No. 1 was restrained from dispossessing respondent No. 1 in pursuance of that order. The authorities were, however, left to take such action against the respondent No. 1 as permissible under the law. The High Court did not advert to Section 15 of the 1972 Act which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court. 7. Shri Mahabir Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the High Court was in error in holding that the property in dispute is not public premises and that it does not belong to State of Haryana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the same. The said finding was recorded by the Collector, Hissar, on the basis of evidence produced before him by the Public Works Department, Government of Haryana. Respondent No. 1 had appeared before the Collector and had full opportunity to refute the said evidence. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the said order of Collector, Hissar, before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, which appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Hissar, by order dated October 7, 1982. Before the Commissioner, the respondent No. 1 did not challenge the finding recorded by the Collector, Hissar, with regard to the premises being public premises and raised other contentions which have been rejected by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has confirmed the finding recorded by the Collector that land in dispute is in the ownership of State Government and possession of the same by respondent No. 1 is illegal and unauthorised. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition (C.W. No. 5268 of 1982) against the said order of the Commissioner and the said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana by order dated December 1, 1982 and the special leave petition filed by respondent No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector can be right or it may be wrong. Merely because the Collector has made an error in making the determination about a premises being public premises would not mean that the order passed by the Collector is without jurisdiction and a nullity. The 1972 Act provides a remedy, namely, an appeal to the Commissioner under Section 9, for the rectification of the error committed by the Collector. In the present case, respondent No. 1 availed this remedy and filed an appeal against the order of the Collector dated September 2.5, 1970. The Commissioner while dismissing the said appeal by order dated October 7, 1982, affirmed the order of the Collector and held that the premises in dispute belongs to the State Government of Haryana and is public premises. Respondent No. 1 did not rest content but filed a writ petition (C.W. No. 5268 of 1982) in the High Court which was also dismissed. In these circumstances it is not possible to hold that the order dated September 25, 1970 passed by the Collector was a nullity and the suit filed by respondent No. 1 was not barred by Section 15 of the 1972 Act. The trial court and the first appellate court had rightly held the suit to be barred by Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
