- (1.) The Petitioner rather has been very entrepreneur. Though he was allotted a shop by the Market Committee, Bhattu Kalan in District Faridabad but he constructed another shop unauthorisedly by occupying the bachat land. When the Market Committee came to learn about the same, they sought his ejectment, which has now been ordered by the Collector. Besides, the Collector has also directed me Petitioner to pay damages @ Rs. 20,000/- per year since 1988 till the date of handing over of the possession to the Market Committee.
(2.) Tills order was passed on 3.3.2003. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed by the Collector on 3.3.2009. In this manner, the Petitioner has successfully retained his unauthorised occupation of the shop constructed in an illegal manner.
(3.) Though counsel for the Petitioner did make an attempt to show that this shop could not be termed as one which is unauthorisedly constructed but soon lost his breath in this regard. It would emerge from the impugned order passed by the Collector and of the Commissioner that unauthorised construction of shop and its occupation is rather conceded. While appearing before the Collector, a submission was made on behalf of the Petitioner that he was ready to pay the price of the disputed shop. The Collector noticed that as per the report, Exhibit P-2, it was proved that the Petitioner had constructed an unauthorised shop measuring 85' x 11'-6'' in between shop No. 109 and 110 on the disputed land. This finding of fact was also not seriously disputed by the Petitioner in the written statement filed, revealing that he had constructed a shop on bachat land. This aspect was even considered by the Appellate Authority and so also the prayer of the Petitioner that he was ready to pay the price of the shop. In fact, the Petitioner had moved an application before the Appellate Authority that he, on his own, wanting to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the Market Committee for this shop, if the Market Committee was prepared to get the registry done of half of the portion of the shop in his name. This was construed to be an indicative of the fact that the Petitioner had been in an illegal and unauthorised occupation of the shop. In this regard, reference was also made to Sections 2 and 3 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short, ''the Act''). Section 3 reads as under: 3. Unauthorised occupation of public premises.- For the purposes 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, lessee or grantee, has by reason of the determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant in accordance with the terms in that behalf therein contained, ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such public premises; or (c) XXX;