STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KHALSA MOTORS LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on August 30,1990

STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
VERSUS
Khalsa Motors Limited Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

TIRUGNANASAMBANDAM VS. HEMA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-440] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DABUR RESEARCH FOUNDATION [LAWS(DLH)-2021-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 VS. UTECH DEVELOPERS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY [LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-204] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADISH SHAH VS. KAILASHPATI KALWR [LAWS(GAU)-2005-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI VS. ASSOCIATION OF STATE ROAD TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS [LAWS(DLH)-2021-9-96] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment of the High court of Punjab and Haryana dated 24/11/1989 in Civil No. 2488 Regular Second Appeal No. 2488 of 1988 whereby the High court has held that the order dated 25/09/1970 passed by the Collector of Hissar under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Land Recovery) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 1959 Act') is illegal and void and a declaration was granted in favour of respondent 1, M/s Khalsa Motor Co. Ltd. , that the State of Haryana, appellant 1 will not be entitled to dispossess the said respondent from the disputed property in pursuance of the said order of the Collector Hissar and the State of Haryana has been restrained from dispossessing respondent 1 in pursuance, of that order.
(2.)The Sub-Divisional Engineer, Bandr, PWD, Hissar, filed an application before the Collector, Hissar under the 1959 Act wherein it was stated that respondent 1 is in unauthorised possession over an aiea 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 1 may be evicted from the said land forthwith in public interest. On the said application a show cause notice was issued to respondent 1 and after hearing respondent 1, the Collector, Hissar passed an order dated 25/09/1970 wherein it was held that respondent 1 has encroached upon PWD land and respondent 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 1 filed a writ petition (C. W. No. 3394 of 1970 in the High court of Punjab and Haryana wherein he challenged the validity of the provisions of the 1959 Act as well as the order of the Collector, Hissar dated 25/09/1970. During the pendency of the said writ petition in the High court the Haryana State legislature enacted the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Land Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act'). The said Act was brought into force with effect from 10/08/1959 except S. 11, 18 and 19 which came into force with effect from the date of publication of the said Act in the gazette, i. e. 9/11/1972. By S. 18 of the 1972 Act, the 1959 Act was repealed and in S. 19 of the 1972 Act it was provided that notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, anything done or any action taken (including rules or orders made, notices issued, evictions ordered or effected, damages assessed, rents or damages or costs recovered and proceedings initiated) or purported to have been done or taken under the 1959 Act shall be deemed to be as valid and effective as if such thing or action was done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 1972 Act, which shall be deemed to have come into force on 10/08/1959. C. W. 3394 of 1970 filed by respondent 1 was dismissed by the High court by order dated 12/12/1979. Thereafter respondent 1 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, against the order of the Collector, Hissar dated 25/09/1970. The said appeal of respondent 1 was dismissed by the Commissioner by order dated 7/10/1982. The Commissioner affirmed the finding recorded by the Collector, Hissar, that the land in dispute is in the ownership of the State government and the possession of respondent 1 over the same is illegal and unauthorised. Respondent 1 filed another writ petition (C. W. No. 5268 of 1982 in the High court of Punjab and Haryana wherein he challenged the order of Commissioner, Hissar Division, dated 7/10/1982. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High court by order dated 1/12/1982. Respondent 1 filed a petition in this court for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High court dated 1/12/1982. The said special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order of this court dated 24/10/1984 wherein it has been mentioned that respondent 1 was praying for permission to withdraw the special leave petition as he proposes to approach the High court for review. It appears that no review petition was filed by respondent 1 in the High court.
(3.)On 6/02/1981, respondent 1 had filed a civil suit against the appellants and respondent 2 seeking a declaration to the effect that land 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 1 also sought consequential relief of grant of permanent injunction against the defendants that they should refrain from dispossessing respondent 1 from the premises in dispute. The saidsuit was contested by respondent 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 S. 15 of the 1972 Act and it was also submitted that the suit was barred by the principle of resjudicata in view of the decision of the High court of Punjab and Haryana in Writ Petition No. 3394 of 1970. It was also submitted that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. On the merits it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the land in question is a public premises and respondent 1 is in unauthorised occupation of the same. It was also submitted that respondent 1 has encroached on 1354 sq. ft. of land, that respondent 1 is not the owner thereof and the same is owned by the Public Works Department of the State. It was also stated in the said written statement that the Collector, Hissar had afforded full opportunity to respondent 1 to prove his case and that respondent 1 had failed to produce any document in order to prove his ownership and after considering the evidence produced by the department, the Collector had passed the order dated 25/09/1970 and the writ petition filed by respondent 1 in the High court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the said order of the Collector, was dismissed by the High court by judgment dated 12/12/1979 and as a result of the order of the Collector dated 25/09/1970, the land in question is a public premises and not Abadi Deb.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.