- (1.) The writ petition is a challenge to the proceedings taken by the Improvement Trust for ejectment under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Act, . The action was resisted by the present petitioner contending that he was in possession of the property comprised in Khasra No.6712 and it was to an extent of 3 marlas and 195 sq. feet out of 11 kanals 17 marlas. The petitioner's claim to ownership and possession was in pursuant to a purchase from Bhim Sain through a registered deed on 10.01.1975. The petitioner sought to contend that even in the jamabandi for the years 1979-1980 and 1984-1985 the petitioner's name had been shown as one of the co-sharers.
(2.) The Assistant Collector, who decided the case and the Commissioner that heard the appeal held that the Improvement Trust had established that the petitioner had been in unauthorized occupation, accepted the contention of the Improvement Trust that the property had been acquired under the Punjab Improvement Trust Act and an award had been passed on 05.01.1977 declaring the property to fall within 75 acres that had become vested with the Improvement Trust. Both the Collector and the Commissioner held that the petitioner had not shown as to how he had ownership to the property. The claim by the Trust that the property had been taken possession of on 16.03.1981 had been alleged to have been proved by a Rapat Roznamcha drawn on the day.
(3.) An ejectment under the Public Premises Act is a summary remedy where the ownership issued does not loom large and a public authority would be entitled to secure an ejectment, if the person in possession is in an unauthorized possession. The ownership of a public property or vesting of property in a public authority ought to be shown through entries in public records themselves when a person in possession resists an action for ejectment under a claim to title through a sale deed and relies on jamabandi entries showing her as a person in possession. The ejectment could not be ordered, unless, it is found that the person was in unauthorized possession and the public authority had tendered some evidence that it was a land vested with such an authority. A report of Roznamcha cannot displace the effect of what registered sale deed contains. If the Improvement Trust had relied on a notification issued under the Act and was able to corelate the property which the petitioner was claiming as her own, then, the order of ejectment would have been appropriate. I have seen through the orders passed by the authorities and I find that the authorities have placed the burden wrongly on a person, who was admittedly in possession. The possession, it is trite to say, is nine points in law and it cannot be interfered with unless, the person who seeks ejectment shows better proof. There is no detail before me about whether the award had made reference to the specific property comprised in Khasra No.6712. The order of ejectment could not have been passed without definite finding that this property was a subject of notification for acquisition and the property acquired was shown to include the property in Khasra No.6712. When the petitioner had challenged this order of eviction, the Improvement Trust has been served with notice but they did not filed any reply to contest the petitioner's claim. On the other hand, a private individual who claims to have purchased the property by way of an allotment has impleaded himself as the 4 th respondent to deny the petitioner's contention.;