LexThe Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,1972 (24 of 1972)
Haryana · state statute
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this act
PUBLIC PREMISES AND LAND
(EVICTION & RENT RECOVERY)
ACT, 1972/1973
APPLICABLE TO PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[Received the assent of the Pesident of India on the 29th June" 1973, and was first published for
general information in the Punjab Government Gazette (Ex traordinary), dated the 6th July, 1973].
An Act to provide for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from pub lic premises and for
certain incidental matters.
Be it enacted by the Legislatures. of ,Haryana/Punjab in the [Twenty-third]1
[Twenty-fourth]2 Year of the Republic of India as follows :-
1. SHORT TITLE, EXTE NT AND COMMENCEMENT :-(1) This Act may be called the
[Haryana1) [Punjab2) public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 19721/19732.
(2) It extends to the whole of the,State of Haryana/Punjab .
(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the [10th day of August, 1959-in Hr.] [27 day
of November, 1959-in Pb.] except Sections 11, 18, and 19 -which shall come into force at once.
CASE LAW
Subsequent application filed by Gram Panchayat for eviction of the respondents was held to have
attracted the doctrine of resjudicata -proceedings under the 1973 Act are' summary -Authority under the
1973 has no power to decide question of title of land -Questions of title and possession are to be looked
into only to the extent of deciding case of eviction-As held by Apex Court in 1997(4) ALL INDIA LAND
LAWS REPORTER 401, doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to summary proceed ings unless the
statute expressly applies to such matters -Authorities are not civil courts nor is the petition a plaint-
Doctrine of RESJUDICATA is not applicab le-Second application is maintainable -Civil procedure Code,
1908-S. 11; Gram P anchayat Surewala v. Commissioner, Feroz epur, 1998(2) ALL INDIA LAND
LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 46.
Writ Petition is filed for issuance of w rit in the nature of prohibition directing respondents,
authorities and restraining them from demolishing the religious place --Quashing of order is sought as no
opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, orders are ultra vires to the provisions of the Act -
During the pendency of petition a large number of documents have been filed to p rove the l ands as not
''Public Premises"--Impugned notice/orders are set aside-Matter referred back to Estate Officer to decide
afresh if the –land falls within the ambit Of public premises after taking into consideration the additional
evidence produced and hearing the parties -Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) A ct,
1971-S. 5 -B(1); Mandir of Pir Sultan Mohammed Khan, Village Devi Nagar, District Panchkula v.
Additional District Judge, Ambala and others .
2000(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REP ORTER (PB&HRY.) 24.
2 Public Permises and land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act
SECTION- 2
Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 --Ss. 4 and 5 -premises w ere
ordered to be resumed -Tenants and owner were to ejected under no ticed or were given no opportunity
of hearing-Complete denial or principles of natural justice -Such pleas was raised in th e lower appellate
Court also that was brushed aside-Appeals allowed -Matter remanded back to competent authority for
proceedings as pe r law-Constitution of India, Article 226 -Capital of Punjab(Development & regulation
Act, 1952, S. 8 -A; Dr. Mohinder verma v. Chandigarh Administration; 1999(1) ALL IN DIA LAND
LAWS REPORTER (P.&H.) D.B. 479..
Nine allottees out of a total of 169, were giv en notice under Public Premises ( Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act , 1971-Petitioners allge discrimination and pray for injunction, denied by
High Court -Held-Since the injunction, a discretionary order, has been d enied by the High Court,
learned Judge and the Division bench it is not deemed expedient under Art. 136 of the constitution to
upset the order s of the High Court -Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -0. 39, Rs. 1 and 2; l umbinin Nagar Co-
op. Housing Society ltd. and others v. Union of India and others;
1995(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER VOL 42 (S. t.) 514.
Eviction-Apex Court had set up a High Power Committee to deal with and settle dispute of
major and fiscal nature between P ublic Section undertaki ngs to cut short the time consumed in
litigation as also to avoid prass ion on the courts-Petitioner sought a reference in the eviction case to be
made to the High P ower Committee Such petty disputes like eviction, are not directed to be deal with
by High level officers whose duty and ti me is of very importa nt nature; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v
LIC of India; , .
1997(2} ALL INDIA LAND LAWS ,REPORTER VOL 42 (S . C.) 226
FOR CENTRAL ACT COMMENTARY
Writ Petition is filed for issuance of writ in the -nature of prohibition directing respondents,
authorities and restraining them from demolishing the religious place Quashing of order is sought as no
opportunity of being heard. was given to pet tioner, orders are ultra vires to the provisions of the Act -
During the pendency of petition a large number of docum ents have been filed to prove the I ands as not
"Public Premises" --Impugned notice/ord ers are set aside -Matter referred back to Estate Officer to
decide afresh if the land ·falls within the ambit of public premises after taking into consideration the
additional evidence produced and heari ng the parties -Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 —S.5-B(1); Mandir of Pir Sultan Mohammed, Khan, Village Devi Nagar, District
Panchkula v.Additional District Judge, Ambala and others.
2000(1} ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (PB&HRY.) 24 .
Eviction-Apex Court had set up a High Power Committee to deal with and settle dispute of
major and fiscal na ture between Public Section undertakings to cut short the time consumed in
litigation as also to avoid pra ssion on the courts --pettioner sought a reference in the eviction case to be
made ·to the High power committee - such petty disputes like eviction, are not directed to be deal with by
High level officers whose duty and time is of very important n ature; Steel authority of India Ltd. v. LlC of
India. 1997(2} ALL INDIA LAND LAVVS REPORTER VOL.42(S.C) 226 .
Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery),Act 3
SECTION-2
FOR PUNJAB
2. DEFINITIONS-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "Collector" means the Collector of the district and includes any other officer appointed by the state
Government for performing the functions Coillector under this Act;
(b) ―Corporate authority" means -
(i) any local authority re ferred to in sub-clause (i), or
(ii) any company or Corporation referred to it in sub -clause (ii) and (iii), of clause (e) .
(c) Estate has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1827;
(d) "premises" means any land, whether used for agri cultural or non -agricultural purpos es, or any
building or part of building and includes, -
(i) the garden, grounds and out -houses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of a building ; and
(ii) any fittings affixed to Such building or part of a bui lding for the more benefi cial enjoyment
thereof;
(e) "public premises" means' any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, 'or on
behalf of the State-Government and includes any premises belong ing to , or taken on lease by or on
behalf of--'
(i) any Municipal Committee Notifi ed Area Committee, Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti Panchayat or
Improvement Trust; .
(ii) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less
than fifty one percent of the paid up share ca pital is held by the State Govern ment; and .
(iii) any Corporation [not being a company, as defined in Section 3 of the . Compan ies Act, 1956 (1
of 1.956), or a l ocal authority established by or under a Centra l Act as defined in clause · (7)of
Section 3 of General Clause Act, 1897, or a Punjab Act and owned or controlled by the state
Government;
(f) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(g) "rent" In relation to any public premises, means, the consideration payable periodically for the
authorized occupation of the premises and includes -
(i) 'any charge for electricity, water or: any other services in connection with the occupation of the
Premises;
. (ii) any tax (by whatever name called) payable in respect of the premises; where such charge or
tax is payable by the State Government or the Corporate authority .
COMMENTARY
-Sections 2( a) and 4 -Collector-Eviction proceedings initiated by the Sub -Divisional Officer -
objection th at Sub -Divisional Officer is neither a Collect or not power. of the Collect or has been
conferred upon him negatived on the ground that all Sub Divisional Officers in the State of Punjab
act as Collectors.
1983(1) ALLINDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 276.
-Section 2(d) and 2(c) -Petitioner ordered to be evicted from Public Premises "in appeal
challenges the land to be p ublic premises -Held-"Premises "m eans any 'land, building or
part of building and if it belongs to the Gove rnment in any manner or
4 Public Permises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act
SECTION-2
through any agency, it becomes public premises -Disputed premise belong to the State
Government and as such are public premises-Petition fails.
1993(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 41.
FOR HARYANA
2. DEFINITIONS- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) ―Collector‖ means the collector of the district and includes any other officer
appointed by the state Government for performing the functions of Collector under this Act;
(b) Estate has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
(c) ―premises‖ means any land, whether used for agricultural or non -agricultural
purposes, or any building or part of a building and includes—
(i) the garden, grounds and out -houses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of
the building; and
(ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial
enjoyment thereof;
(d) ―prescribed‖ means by rules made under this Act;
(e) ―public premises‖ means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or
requisitioned by , or on behalf of the State Government, Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable property Act, 1954, and includes any premises belonging to any local authority
1[of District Soldiers and Airman’s Board] [as any University established by law.]
(f)‖rent― in relation to any public premises, means the consideration payable
periodically for the authorized occupation of the premises and includes—
(i) any charge for electricity, water or any other services in connection with the
occupation of the premises;
(ii) any tax(by whatever name called) payable in respect of the premises; where such
charge or tax is payable by the State Government or the corporate authority.
COMMENTARY
Section 2(d) (as amended in 1969) - Bank(Patiala Central Co -operative Bank Patiala )
leasing premises –such leased premises are public premises as State Government has more than
51% share in the Bank-Bank premises covered by the definition of the word public premises.
1983(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 276.
-Notification issued for acquisition of Land for public purpose - In the mean time State
lauched proceeding for eviction of the petitioner from the land unauthorisedly occupied by
him- Land in dispute had vested in State Government -Eviction ordered -Both eviction and
notification issued for acquisition challenged by the Petitioner-Eviction order upheld in appeal-
No scope for interference in High Court -Acquisition notification also held right -Land
Acquisition Act,1894, Ss.4 and 6.
1991(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 18.
As per central act—public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971.
(a) Section2(c)(i) -Premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on
behalf of Central Government as well as premises placed by that Government under the control
of either house of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to members of the staff
of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament.
Public Permises and land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act 5
SECTION-2 and 3
(b) Section 2( e}(ii} -Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of various kinds
of bodies such as Universities, Institute of technology Board of Trus tees of Major Port Trusts and the
Bhakra Management Board -Belonging to or: taken on lease by or on behalf of a Govern ment
Company or its subsidiary-Of any corporation established by ' or under a Central Act and ow ned by, or
controlled by the Central Government in the present case.
(c}Section 2( e }( iii)--.Premises belonging to certain local authorities in the - Un ion Territory
of Delhi.-
COMMENTARY
-Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, Premable -Provison of this act
would prevail upon those of state Acts -VOL. 23 SUPP. ALL INDIA LAND LA WS REPORTER
505.
-Ss. 2(g}, 4, 5 and 9 -Site allotted to Chuni lal resume by the Estate Officer Chandigarh for
having violated conditions of allotment -Proceedings against tenants for evictio n as unauthorised
occupants--Tenant Respondents file wit petitions against the orders-Tenants have no right to continue
in Posse ssion when allottees have been dispossessed -Superstructure built on the site be longed to
allottees and they are to manage its removal or make some settlement with the administration-
Tenants have no bette r rights than the landlords.
VOL. 26 ALL INDIA LAN D LAWS REPORTER 599.
-S.2( d} and 2( c} -Petitioner ordered to be evicted from premises in appeal challenges the land
to be public premises -Held "premises" means any manner or through any agency, it becomes public
premises-Disputed premises belong to the S tate Government and as such are public Premises-
Petition fails;
1993(2} ALL INDIA LAND LA WS REPORTER41.
FOR PUNJAB AND HARYANA
3. UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF PUB LIC PREMISES .-For the pur poses of this
Act, a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any
public premises -
(a) where he has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act entered into possession
thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment lease or grant; or ,
(b) where he, being an allottee, l essee or grantee, has, by reason of t he determination or
cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant in accordance w ith the terms in that behal f therein
contained, ceased, wh ether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be entitled to occupy or
hold such public premises; or
(c) where any person authorised to occupy any public premises has, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, - .
(i) sub -let, in contravention of the te rms of allotment, lease or grant, without the permission of
the State Government or of any oth er authority' competent to permit su ch sub-letting, the whole or any
part of such public premises; or
. (ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terns, express or implied, un der which he is
authorised to occupy such public premises.
Explanation.-For the purpose of clause (a), a person shall not merely by reason of the fact
that he has paid any, rent be deemed to have entered into poss ion as allottee, lessee or grantee.
6 Public Permises and land (Evict ion & Rent Recovery) Act
SECTION-3
COMMENTARY
-Section 3-Notice sent not on the prescribed form-Proceedings are not vitiated unless prejudice is
alleged to have been caused to the petitioner.
1983(1)ALL INDIA LAWS REPORTER 276 .
--Section 3(b)-Person continuing to be in possession after the lease has been
determined becomes an unauthorised occupant.
1983(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 276.
"Sections 3 and 5 - Tenancy created for the fixed per iod-Possession cannot be said to be
unauthorised from Inception-Relationship of landlord and tenan t in the revenue record as tenant on
payment of rent fails within the definition of a tenant holding- Tenant cannot be said to be an
unauthorised occupant without invoking the provision Transfer of Property Act.
1986(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 467.
PUNJAB PUBLIC PREMISES
(EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971
Section 3 -A--Under challenge is the order passed by the District Judge -Upholding on appeal the
order of eviction under Punjab Public Premises Act-Under the capital of Punjab Act, the site was
allotted for construction of a building for residential purpose s-On construction transferee let out the
building for running a school In contravention of the allotment terms-Site and building were resumed
by Estate Officer-under Punjab Public Premises Act, a show cause notice was issued to the tenant as
well as a llottee-Site and building resumed under Section 3 -A of Punjab Public Prem ises Act-Once
resumed the site and building become public premis es-Contractual relations between the allottee and
Estate O fflcer came to an end -Occupants become unauthorised Occupants, and possession can be
recovered by the Estate Officer without being driven to file a suit a civil Court-No infirmity is found in
the order of t ile Estate Officer, \V1ich stands confi rmed by the District Jud ge-Capital of
Punjab·(Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 , S.8A; H.K.L. Vij an v. Chandigarh
Administration. & ors..
1997(2) ALL INDIA LANDLAVUS REPORTER (P.&H.) 553 •..
Sections 2 and 3-Petitioner having been declared as unauthorised occupant of public premises, Is
In appeal..-petitioner had taken the public premises (belonging to Gram Panchayat) on rent irregularly
paid the rent-Premises later on passed over to Municipal Committee ,and thus, continued to be public
premises-Failure to pay rent i.e. failure to comply with the terms of the lease, rendered the petitioner as
. unauthorised occupant-NO ground to interfere in exercise of writ j urisdiction; Dr. Paul alias
Mahabir Singh v. Municipal Commissioner, Naranund;
1996(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 423 •.
-Sections 2(d), (e), 3 and 5 read with S. 7-Punjab Gram Panchay at Act, 1953, S. 4(2) and (3) -
Land In dispute. shown as property of custodian -Later passed over to Gram Panchayat - Thereafter
by notification vested in the Municipality-Gram Panchayat was abolished -Municipality gave the
land on th ekha-A relation o f landlord tenant was created -Accepted by appellants -Premises given
on theka satisfied the definition given In S. 2(d) -Since it belongs to local authority, i t acquires the
status or public premises-The Thekedar in the capacity or allotee, lessee or grantee, by reaso n of
determination of such allotment, lease or grant would become
Public Permises and land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act 7
SECTION-3 and 4
an unauthorized occupant-By force of S.5 read with s. 7~Munlcipality gets-a right to file petition for
ejectment-Appeals devoid of merit, are dismissed. Charan Singh v. municipal Committee, Rania;
1996(2)ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 387.
S: 3 -:-Lessee where lease ha s expired and who continues to be in possession ca n be ejec ted
either by fling a suit OR un der the provisions of t he Public Premises Act-In case of tenan cy for fixed.
term, tenancy stan ds automatically determined by eflux of time - it is tenants duty to handover
possession - in not doing that becomes an unau -thoirsed occupant - No action on t he p art of the
landlord byway of notice etc. is necessary Can be ejected under un der Public Premises Act - Transfer
of Property Act, 1852, S.108(g).
1999(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAW REPORTE(P&H)280.
FOR PUNJAB AND HARYANA
4. ISSUE OF NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST ORDER OF E VICATION.-( 1) If
the Collector is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premis es
situate, with in his jurisdiction and they should be evicted, the collector shall issue in the manner
hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all person concerne d, to show cause why an order
of eviction should not be made.
(2) The notice shall--
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made ;
and
(b) require a ll persons concerned. that is to say, all persons who are or may be, in occupation
of or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed ord er on or
before such date as is specified in the notice being a date not earl ier than ten days from the dat e of
issue thereof.
(3)The Collector shall ca use the notice to be affixed o n the outer door or some other
conspicuous part of the public premises or the estate. in which the public premises are s ituate, and in
such other manner as may be prescribed whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have b een duly
given to all persons concerned.
(4) Where the Colle ctor knows or has reasons to believe t hat any persons are in occu pation of
the public premises, then without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy
of the notice to b e served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person
or in such other manner as may b e prescribed.
COMMENTARY
-Sections 4 and 5-Coliector is to issue notice to all persons who are in unauthorised possession
of public prem ises against order of eviction -issue of notice to one only who is also not a partner but
attends to business, is not enough Specific provisions of Section 4 have not been followed -Case
remanded to the Collector for deciding the matter &afresh.
1991(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAVVS REPORTER 533.
-Composite notice under S ections 4 and 7(3) -Notice against evic tion and payment of damages
is a valid notice-Separate notice need not be issued after passing evi ction order. Moha n Lall v. The
Commissioner, Hissar Division and others.
1981 ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 24.
8 Public Permises and land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act
SECTION--- 4
-Notice need not contai n the Historical background of the public premises of the mann er in
which the encroachment was made. Jetha Nand v.. State of Haryana and others.
1981 ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 528.
-Section 4-Additional land allotted to ex-Servicemen to augment income, pos session given -
Order allowing additional land cancelled, ex-servicemen directed t o surrender the I and-Purpose is to
settle more exservicemen -Eviction order passed by the Co llector,appeal dismissed by High Court in
limine by speaking order -By special leave judgment challenged In Supreme Court -Held-Appellants
have been in' possession f or over 2 decades -;-Respondents case is more families are to be settled and
no additional land available -Directed 3 acre out of 5 to be surrendered to accom modate 17 more
exservicemen families.
1993(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 1.
-Sections 4 and 9 -Jamabandi-Earlier entries show the land in dispute in p ossession of
proprietors of village but later it is shown as belonging to Gram Panchayat-Petitioner challenges the
orders of the Collector thus declaring him in unauthorised Possession-Definite findings h ave to be
given recording reasons how the subsequent entries in jamabandi were chaged--In the absence of such
findings, orders of the appellate authority, quashed.
1993(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAVVS REPORTER410.
Sections 4 and 5 -Can a tenant of the resumed sit e (and building) be evicted under Public
Premises A ct as unauthorised occupation -when site is res umed and the building is automatically
resumed un less demolished by the, O wner, site and building is automatically resumed un less
demolished by the O wner, site and building become pub lic premises - Tenant of this public premises if
inducted by the erst while' Owner, who has lost his t itle the State becomes an unauthorised occupation-
Can this be evicted under the Public Premises Act -Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1952-S. 8A; H.KL Vijan v. Chandigarh Administration and others;
1997(2) ALLINDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P.&H.) 474.
Sections 4, 7 and 15--Company and the firm are lessees on the l and Owned
by Railways -Railways enhanced the licence fee arbitrarily and the lessees stopped paying it -Action
under Public Premises Act Initiated by th e Railways Firm and Company file applications under S. 20
Of Arb. Act for appoi ntment Of arbitrator as per terms o f the lease -Held-Proceedings under P.P.Act
already initiated, petition under S. 20 of Arb. Act is not maintainable as the arbitrator will have no
jurisdiction in the matter of disputes failing under S. 15 of the P.P. Act -Application dismisse d-
Arbitration
Act, 194O-S. 20; Kesar Enterprlses Ltd. -Union of India;
1996(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (DELHI) 313.
S.4(1)-Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 -Ss. 9 and ,1O -Notice issued
to the petitioner under Pub lic Premises Act for eviction -Prayer is for issuance of a Wit of mandam us
for regulatisation of the construction made bu petitioner on, disput ed site-order Of resumption passed
cannot be se t aside and this leads to the Conclusion of illegality of the const ruction made there on -
construction,' .. : _, ,,' •
Made after. passing of the resumption order and dismissal of appeal and revision cannot be regularized-
petitoner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong -writ petition without substance is liable
to be rejected - Taking into a acco unt , sub stantial amount Of money spent on construction, Court would
like to give one
Public Permises and land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act 9
SECTl0N-4 and 5
more opportunity to petitioner to retain possession by filing an application for reallotment of the plot in
accordance with conditions laid down by administration --Administration thereafter. to sanction the building
plan as per rules and regulations, to· regularise th e construction-Failure to apply for reallotment would result
in compliance of resumption orders; Gram Panchayat Surewala v. Commissioner, -Ferozepur, .
1998(2) ALL INDIA LAND LA WS REPORTER (P&H) 212.
Ss. 5 and 4 -Houses resumed, petitioners evicted from the premises without notice and without
following procedure-Claim to be tenants, under the ow ner on roomNo. 2 and 3 of second floor-Resumption
was on account of misuse by the tenan t on the ground floor and the owner --Held-it is difficult to hold if the
petitioners were tenants under the Owner or were in occupation of the second floor when the house was
resumed To entertain the claim, Estate Officer is directed to hold enquiry If petitioners were occupying the
premises as tenants-In case they are found to be not in occupation, wit petition Would be deemed to have
been dismissed -In case they are-found to be in occupation when the house was sealed, orders que them
quashed -Capital of' Punjab(Development and Regulation) Act -S. SA; Piara Singh, v. Chandigarh
Administration and others;
1996(1) ALL IN DIA LAND LA WS REPORTER ( P.&H.) 147 •
. Ss.·4 a nd 7-ReSpondent was ordered to be. evicted but Ld. Single Judge accepted his petition -
Appeal by Gram Panchayat -Respondent claims to be in Cultivating possession of land f orlat 30 years,. isa
co-sharer an d B iswedar in the . village - Land is entered in revenue recore d as "MUSHTARKA
MALKAN‖ Gram Panchayat says land was taken by him on lease i n 1975 - Panchayat is O wner of the
land since 1956 - On expiry of laese respondent becames unauthoirsed occupant -:Hence the proceedings-
Panchayat has decided to use it for School, a public pur pose Responent has not been able to prove
possession for 30 Years or payme nt of lease money after 1975 -76 - Thus unauthorised occupant-No equity
in his favour-Eviction by trial Court upheld; Gram Panchayat Hindole v. Kanshi Ram •
. 1998 (2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER(P&H)401 .
Sections 4 and 7-Gram Panchayat seeks eviction of respondent, Who tookland in dispute on lease
in 1975 from. Gram Panchayat -No new lease entere d or old one re newed, no rent or lease mo ney Paid,
respondent was in unauthorised occupation -Respondent claims to be a co -sharer ln cu ltivating possession
for more than 3O years -Possession for 30 years is disputed -Not supported by evidence Whatsoever-
Respondent has not produced any evidence to Show that he paid any lease money to Gram Panchayat after
1975-76-Thus in occupation Without payment-Unauthorised . possession-Appeal allowed; Gram
Panchayat, Hindole v. Kanshi Ram •
. 2000(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER ( PB. &HRY.) 166.
FOR PUNJAB AND HARYANA .....
5. EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS :-(1) If, after considering the c ause if any, Sh ow
by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and any :evidence he may produce In support of
the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector Is Satisfied that the
public premises are its • unauthorised occupation, the Collector may make an order of eviction for
person to recorded therein, directing that the public premi ses are in un authorised Occupa tion, the
Collector may make an order of eviction for person to recorded therein,
10 Public Permises and land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act
SECTION-5
directing that the pu blic premises shall be vacated on such date as may be specified in the order, by all
persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof and cause a copy of the order to be
affirmed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public pr emises or of the estate in
which the public premises are situate.
(2) If any person refuse or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days of its
publication under sub -section (1), the collector or any other officer duly authorise d by him in this
behalf may evict that person form and take possession of the public and may, for that purpose, use
such force as may be necessary.
COMMENTARY
-Section5- Bungalow was granted to a person whose son later came to occupy it -This was
under Gov ernment Grants -Later the old grant of the present occupier, the son, was
resumed-Respondent having been inducted by the son as tenant has no right to continue in
possession which is wholly unauthorised –Government Grants Act, 1895 - Sec. 5. 1992(2)
ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 13.
-S.5(1)-Land owned by Government, held in grant by a person and subsequently by his
son—During this period son inducted a tenant, the respondent here —Grant resumed —
Tenant ordered to vacate by Estate officer -Order seta aside by Tria l Court-Union of India
in appeal Held -Property proved to be public Premises –Rights of tenant, if any,
extinguished with the rights of the persons having the Grant, after the public premises were
resumed-Possession of the tenants, Respondents cannot be held as legal.
1992(2)ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 564.
-S.5-Notification issued for acquisition of Land for public purpose -In the meantime State
launched proceeding for eviction of the petitioner from the land unauthorisedly occupied
by him-Land in dispute h ad vacated in State Government -Eviction ordered-Both eviction
and notification issue for acquisition challenged by the Petitioner-Eviction order upheld in
appeal-No scope for interference in High Court -Acquisition notification also held right -
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss. 4 and 60.
1991(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 18
-Section 5 and 4 -Punjab Gram Panchayat Common Purposes Land ( Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1976, Section 3 and 2(a) -Land after imposing cut on Landowner during
Consolidation kept as Mustarka Malkan as per revenue records -Is not Shamilat -deh-Does
not vest in Gram Panchayat -Gram Panchayat has no locus staid to initiate eviction
proceedings.
1986(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 16.
Ss. 4,5 and 7 -Factum of taking land on lease on Chako ta from Gram Panchayat admitted
by the petitioner before trial Court -Title of land as of the landowner cannot be denied by
the lessee-After expiry of lease period, petitioner should have surrendered possession -Not
done, becomes unauthorised -Deserves to be thrown out of this land -Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 -S.111; Jarnail Singh v. The joint Development Commissioner
(I.R.D.)Punjab; 1995(4) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H)43
Section5-Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land Eviction and Rent Recovery)
Act, 1976-Section 3-Gram Panchayat files suit for eviction of respondents/defendants from
the land meant for raising income for Gram
Public Permises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act 11
SECTION-5
Panchayat i.e. belonging to Gram Panchayat i.e. public premises-Suits were dismissed on one count
or the other upto Joint Director-In appeal Single Judge observed that the Supreme Court ruling under
the consolidation scheme no land Could be reserved for income of Gram Panchayat-Gram Panchayat
in appeal, by rev enue record some of the lands if not all of them had been leased out by the Gram
Panchayat-Held-Some- portion of land has been leased out but some of its continues to be in posses -
sion of petitioners -Joint Dir ector would re-examine the entire matter and give finding within 6
months-Status quo regarding possession continues till then; Gram Panchaya t Khiala v. Joint
Director, Panchayat (Commissioner), Punjab;
1995(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 55.
S. S-B{ 1 )-Writ petition is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition directing
respondents, authorities and restraining them from demolishing the religious place -Quashing of order
is sought as no opportunity of being heard was given to the petit ioners orders are ultra vires to the
provisions of the Act -During the pendency of petition a large number of documents have been filed
to prove the lands as not Public Premises -Impugned notice/orders are set asi de-Matter referred back
to Estate Officer to decide afresh if the land falls within the ambit of public premises after taking into
consideration the additional evidence produced and hearing the parties; Mandir of Pir Sul tan
Mohammed Khan, Village Devi Nagar, District Panch kula v. Additional District Judge,
Ambala and others.
2000(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (PB&HRY.) 24.
Ss. 5 and 7 -With the nationalisation of the Insurance Companies, the premises belonging to a
constituent company to ok the shape of public premises - "This building had a tenan t since 1944,
who had further indicted the appellant herein as sub -tenant-L.!. C. filed suit for eviction of both under
the U nauthorised Occupants Act and the damages for the. use of public premises -Estate Officer
passed an order of eviction. , as also for damages against the appellant company -At one stage lower
court negated the claim for damages but when the High Court ordered remand to Estate Officer ,
L.I.C: pleaded its case for da magesalso to be included-About the damages part of it the appellant are .
in apex Court by special leave petition -Held-When the occupation of the premises in question was a
factor in continuation, the liability to apy for the use and occupation thereof, be it in the form of rent
or of damages was also a continuing factor -Both these questions be viewe d interdependently;
Shangrila Food Products Ltd. & Anr. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another;
1997{3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (SUPRE ME COURT) 328 .
Sections 5 and 7 -Petitioner challenged. eviction orders on th e g round that· most of the land
vested in Central Government and rest in Gram Panchayat -Suit by Municipal Committee is not
maintainable-Held, it has been proved that ultimately Municipality has stepped into the shoes of the
Central Government as well the Gram further Panchayat -Held-None of the documents produced
Shown that the land owner, may be Gram Panchayat and Central Government and lastly the
Municipal Committee, have accepted any rent from the petitioner -Petitioner is in un authorised
occupation of the land after expiry of the lease; Pritam Singh v. Municipal : Committee
Rania; 1995(4) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 573 •
. Sections 5 and 7-A person is possession of land after the expiry of lease of one year and having
held the possession by virtue of litigation. Without payment of
12 Public Permises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act .
SECTION- 5, 6 and 7
any rent, is not a lessee -Unauthorised possession is not entitled to invoke the discretionary
jurisdiction under Con stitution Of India, Article 22 6; Pritam Singh v. Municipal Committee
Rania; ,
1995(4) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORT ER (P&H) 573.
Sections 5 and 7 -order of eviction from public premis es under the Haryana Act 1972 or
impugned-Petitioner is a tenant on paymen t of annual rent of Rs. 80/per acre-Ground of challenge
that Trial Court had erred in treating the land as belonging to Municipal Com mittee whereas as per
mutation entries most of the land belonged to Gram Panchayat a nd rest to Central Go vernment-As
per r espondents share of the Gram Panchayat was transferred to Municipality and hence the
maintainability of the eviction petition -Held-After expiry of the. ann ual lease, Panchayat or the
Committee never accepted any rent -Petitioner cannot be held to be in auth orised occupation of the
land-He continued in possess ion w ithout paying rent because of litigation -Such a person i s not
entitled to invoke1he discretionary powers of the Court; Pritam Singh v. Municipal
Committee Rania & ors.1995(2) ALL IN DIA LAND LAWS REPORTERVOL. 42 (P&H)
591.
FOR PUNJAB AND HARYANA .
6. DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY LEFT ON PUBUC PREM ISES BY UNAU THORISED
OCCUPANTS-(1) Where any persons have been evicted from any public premise under Secti on 5.
the Collector may, after giving fourt een days notice to the persons f rom whom possession of the
public premises has been taken and after publishing the notice in at least o ne newspaper having
circulation in the locality, remove or cause to be removed or sell by public auction any property
remaining on . such premises.
(2) Where any property is Sold under sub-section (1), the sale proceeds thereof shall, after
deducting the expenses of the sa le and the amount, If any due to the State Government or the
[local-in.Hr.], [corporate-In Pb.] authori ty on account of arrears ·of. rent or damages or costs be
paid to such person or persons as may appear to the Collector to be entitled to the same :
Provided that where the Collector is unabl e to decide as to the person or persons to whom
the balance of t he amount i s payable or as to the apportionment of the same, the may re fer such
dispute to the civil court of competent jurisdiction and the decis ion of the c ourt thereon shall be
limit.
For Punjab and Haryana ...
7. POWER TO RECOVER [ RENT OR -IN HR. ONLY], DAMAGES IN RE SPECT
OF PUBLIC PREMISES AS ARREARS OF LAND REVENUE - (1) Where any per son is i n
arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the Collec tor may, by order, require that
person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order .
(2) Where any person is, or has 'at any time been in unauthori sed occupation of any public
premises the Collecto r may having regard to Such principles of assess ment of damages as may be
prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by
Order require that person to pay the damages w ithin such time and i n such instalments as may be
specified in the order.
(3) No order under sub-section (1)or sub-section (2),shall be made against any person until
after the issue of a notice in Writing by the person calling upon him
Public Permises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act 13
SECTION- 7
to show cause within such time as may· be specified In the notice why such order should
not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may pro duce in support of the
same have been considered by the Collector.
COMMENTARY
1. For authorised occupation of public premi ses or land no recovery of rent can be made
under Sectlon,7 of the Act, 1975 PLJ 204.
2. Power of Collector and Assistant Collector to evict-Authority under the Act statutory
provision are ultravires. 1982 AL L INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 210,GRAM
PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KAlLA BANDAR VS.COMMISSIONER PTL.
DIVISION PATIALA.
3. Lessee of the Panchayat cannot avail of the special procedure :- The
provisions of Section 7 of the—Punjab village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1969 are meant to
safeguard the Interest of panch ayats and to put them into posses sion, the Panchayat may take acti on
under Section 7, but the person in posses sion if disposse ssed by a third person cannot resort to the
provisions of Section 7,1964Cur.LJ375-66PLR959.
4. Power to get back pos session, when the premises transferred .- Where
the premises are transferred by way of a sale then the provisions of Section 7 cannot be resorted
to get the possession back. ILR 1965(1) Pb. 245
. 5.Giving notice of a period less than prescribed by law .-Where notice of a period
less than that prescribed by law is given than the notice is not bad. AIR 1963 Pb. 290 ..
6. Requirement to give show cause notice is mandatory.- The person against whom
proceeding are taken should be given notice and the ground on which it is proposed to take action
should be communicated -Where the grounds are not disclosed then the order Cannot be sustained.
1962 PLR 977.
7. Default in appearance; Its effect.-VVhere the Panchayat does not appear then the
petition can be dismissed in default by the C ollector-Collector h ow- ever has inherent powers to
restore the petition dismissed in default. 1968 PLR 163.
8. Petition for ejectment and recove ry of rents.-A petition for recovery of rent
would for maintainable even if the prayer for recovery of p ossession is held to be ultravires. It was
held that the the petition for arrears of rent Would still be maintainable as otherwise Section 10 will
preclude the Panchayat from establishing its title in a court of law. AIR 1968 Pb. 163.
9. Special remedy, provisio n are not ultravires .- The procedure for getting
possession provided under section 7 is not ultra vires because it is es sential to have a speedy remedy-
In this c onnection the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Chagan Lal v.
Greater Bombay Municipality, AIR 1974 SC 2009 may be seen. In this case the earliest decision of
the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. state of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1381 was
held to be bad law and was over ruled. It was observed as under:-
―where a statute providing fo r a more drastice procedure different from the ordinary
procedure covers the whole fiel d covered by ordinary procedure, as in Anwar AliSakar's case, AIR
1952 SC 75 and Suraj MallMohtaj case, AIR 1954 SC 545 without any guidelines as to the class of
cases in which either procedure is to be resorted to the statute will be hit by Article 14. Even there as
14 Public Permises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act
SECTION- 7
mentioned in Suraj Mall Mohtaj’s case, a provision for appeal may cure the defect. Further in
such case if from the preamble and surrounding ci rcumstances, as well as the 12 priovisions
of the statute themselves explained and a ppeal filed by affidavits, necess ary, guidelines
could be inferred as in Saurashtra case AIR 1855 sc 123 and Jyoti Parshad's case. AIR 1961
SC 1962 the statute wi II not be hit by Article 14. Then again where the statute itself covers
only a class as in Haldal case, AIR 1953 SC 404 the statute will not be bad. The fact that in
such case the executive wiII choose wh ich cases are to be tri ed under the special procedure
wiII not eExcerpt shown. Open the full act in Lexace.