LexRAJ KUMAR DEVINDRA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
166 RAJKUMAR DEVINDRA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS September 11, 1972 LJ· M. SHELAT, D. G. PALEK.>\R, K. K. MATHEW, S. N. DWIVED! ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] Punjab Public Premises and Land (Evictiorl and Rent Recovery) A.ct 1959, Section 3 and Section 4 (!)-Unauthorised occupation of public premises-Possession before the prenti'ies became public premises-Eviction cannot be ordered under the Act. B. The appellants, along with their brothers, were residing in an ances• tral property. The eldest member of the family sold the property to tho State Government as property belonging to him. After the sale, the c State Government issued notice of eviction to the appellant under Sec- tion 4(1) of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1959. The writ petition, challenging legality of the evic- tion order was rejected by the single Judge, and then on appeal by the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court. Before this Court the appell~nl< contended. that they were in possesSion under a legal title and that the impugned notice was issued without iurisdicti.on .. HELD : The appdlants were in possession of the property before I> the date of sale to the State Government, when it was not public pre- premises. The word "thereof" in Sec. 3 ( 1) m'lkes it clear that the person muot have entered into poEscssion of public premises before or after the commencement of the Act in order that he may be deemed to be in un- authorised occupation. Uinless the premises are public premises on the date of possession, Section 3 (a) is not app!ic~ble. [170A-B] HELD, further, that Section 3(b) is attracted only where the person E continues in possession after the cancellation or determination of al1ot- n1ent, lease or grant from Government. The appf:llan~s \\'ere not in unauthorised occup21tion of public premises .s.nd therefore the notice under Section 4(1) was issued without jurisdiction:· [171A] Appeal allowed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1967. F Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated October 15, 1963 of the Punjab High Comt at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 330 of 1963. A. Subba Rao, Bhuvansesh Kumari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellant. V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey for respondents Nos. l to 3. Ramamurthi & Co. for the Intervener (State of Jammu and Kashmir). S. C. Majumdar for the Intervener (Megalal Chhaganlal !P) Ltd.). Vinod Kumar, Krishan Lal Mehta and Veneer Kumar for t~e iJitervener. G r • A R c D RAJIWMAll v. PUNJAB (Mathew, J.) 167 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab for the issue of an appropriate writ or -0rder quashing a notice dated June 21, 1961, issued under s. 4(1) of'the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, hereinafter called the 'Act', directing the 2nd appellant to show cause why an order of eviction should not be passed against him in respect of the premises in question. The appellant's 'case was as follows. On the demise of the late ·Maharaja Bhupinder Singh, his eldest son, Maharaja Yada- vindra Singh succeeded to the gaddi of th~ erstwhile State of Patiala which subsequently merged with the State of Punjab. Maharaja Bhupinder Singh, along with his sons including the appellants, constituted a joint Hindu family. The appellants along with the other sons of Mabaraja Bhupinder Singh had · an interest, by virtue of !heir being coparceners, in all the properties of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh. The appellants, along with their brothers, were in occupation of a property known as "colonel Mistry's House", Moti Bagh Palace, Patiala, in their own right as the sons of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh. It was an ancestral pro- perty in the hands of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh and they were residing as members of the family in the said property. On March 10, 1958, Maharaja Yadavindra Sin¥h sold Moti Bagh Palace to the Government of Punjab, as property belonging to him, and delivered actual possession ol certain portion and agreed to deliver possession of the rest subsequently. The State Govern- ment was not competent to evict them under the provisions of the Act as they were not in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that the impugned notice was issued without juris- diction. The counter-affidavit on behalf o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.