- (1.) The appellants filed Civil Writ Petition No. 21883 of 2008 to lay challenge to an order dated 1.9.2008 (P-11) vide which the SDM-cum-Collector, Nawan Shahar, exercising powers under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, ordered eviction of the petitioner from a specific piece of land by giving a finding that the said area was part of Khasra No. 131, which was ear-marked for road, at the time of consolidation proceedings. Further challenge was made to an order dated 19.12.2008 (P-22) vide which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) The petitioner's writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 17.8.2012. By giving a clear finding that as per documents on record, the appellants were in un-authorised possession of land reserved for road, the writ petition was dismissed. Relevant portion of the order reads thus :- "Having been evicted vide order dated 22.11.2012, the petitioners have been able to stall their eviction for all these years, which has seriously effected the public purpose of widening the road. The Appellate Court had initially remanded the case on 20.7.2004 to the S.D.M., for redeciding the same after affording opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence and for the demarcation of the land in the presence of parties. Even fresh demarcation was ordered and carried by Kanungo and Patwari on 31.7.2007 in the presence of parties. It was found that the petitioners had actually encroached upon the area. The petitioners were claiming title through their purchase from Pandit Dogar Ram but failed to produce any document that Dogar Ram had purchased this land from the District Board etc. The appeal was also dismissed. On the basis of these very contentions, the notice in the petition was issued and the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. The writ petition has thereafter remained pending before this Court.
(3.) The petitioners had prayed for time to produce the documents showing that the land was purchased by Pandit Dogar Ram from the Rehabilitation Department. The State was also directed to disclose the breadth of the road situated in Khasra Nos.131 and 131 min. The petitioners could only produce the jamabandies, Annexures P-24 and P-25, showing that the petitioners were the tenant, which did not answer the query posed and the requirement projected. The petitioners prayed for and was granted further time to show the title of Dogar Ram. In the meantime, the State had also filed an affidavit in response to the directions to disclose width of the road. The road in question was stated to be 110 feet wide whereas the demarcation report revealed that the road is 89 feet wide in front of the petitioners shop. The petitioners in turn relied upon the order passed by the Sub Divisional Engineer, allowing them to construct a building leaving 91 ft. and 11 inches road. The case was adjourned to resolve this ambiguity but thereafter was adjourned on number of occasions on the request of parties.;