Sohan Lal vs State of Haryana and others

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

The petitioner Sohal Lal has through this writ petition impugned the orders, annexures P.3 and P.4 dated the 5th March, 1975 and 17th July, 1978, passed by the Collector and, on appeal by the Commissioner respectively, resulting in his eviction from the land in dispute owned by the State Government. The said orders have been impugned, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner, being a tenant, could have been evicted only on the grounds mentioned in section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act; and that any agreement that he might have signed, if the term thereof ran counter to the provisions of section 9 of the Act, the same would be void.

This petition has been contested on behalf of the respondent State. It has been denied that the petitioners was a tenant.

The stand taken on behalf of the respondent State is that the petitioner was a licensee and they have annexed the licence agreement, annexure R. 1 dated the 11th August, 1969, to the written statement, which expressly provided that the petitioner shall hold the land as licensee for the period 6th August, 1969 to 15th May, 1970. On the expiry of this period, when he did not leave the possession of the land, proceeding under section 4 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act were initiated against him on the 31st August, 1970 before the Collector who, vide his order dated the 5th March 1975, ordered his eviction. His appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, vide his order annexure P.4 dated the 17th July, 1978.

In the written statement, it has also been denied that the provisions of the Act would be applicable to the Government land.

In my opinion, there is no merit in this case. It appears that the writ petition was admitted to a hearing on the assumption that the provisions of the Act were applicable and the learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner, was still harbouring under the said impression. It deserves mentioning that subsection (1) of section 21 of the Act, which is in the following terms expressly excludes the land owned by the Government from the application of the provisions of this Act:

"21(1). Nothing contained in this Act shall affect any land held by a tenant or lessee under Government, or local bodies in the State, or any unallotted evacuee land."

Admittedly, the petitioner had executed agreement, annexure R.1, which provided that he would hold the land on licence for the given period which expired on 15th May, 1970. Thereafter, he became unauthorised occupant and liable to be proceeded against under section 4 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act for the purpose of evicting him.

The impugned orders have not been challenged on merit.

For the reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.