- (1.) Albel Singh has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 31.5.1976 (Annexure P.3) of the Collector and dated 26.10.1976 (Annexure P.4) of the Commissioner. It has been filed in the following circumstances:- On an application made by Gram Panchayat Rampura Phul the Collector issued a notice to the petitioner under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land Eviction Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) intimating that he was of the opinion that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of public premises mentioned in the schedule below and directing him to show-cause why an order of eviction be not passed against the petitioner. In Schedule, the description of the encroachment is mentioned as under: Kind of encroachment No. Khasra Measurement Chaunkari (a low platform)X50'X2' The petitioner appeared and contested this notice and contended that the site in dispute was his property. However, he did not produce any evidence in support thereof. The Collector inspected the spot and found that a Chhapar had been built by the petitioner in the street thereby narrowing it. He had illegally occupied the public land. The Collector, therefore, ordered that the illegal possession of the petitioner be got cleared within 30 days. Dissatisfied, the petitioner went up in appeal. The appeal was, however, dismissed by the Commissioner on 26.10.1976 holding that it was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by these orders, Albel Singh has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) In reply to the notice sent by this Court, Gram Panchayat and the Collector have filed their respective written statements controverting the pleas raised in the writ petition.
(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the notice, copy of which is appended as Annexure P.2 to this writ petition, it was mentioned that the petitioner had encroached upon an area of 50'x2' of the public street by constructing a Chaunkari (slightly raised platform). There is no mention in this notice regarding any encroachment by the petitioner by building a Chhapar on any public premises. He further contended that it has been admitted by Gram Panchayat in the written statement in para No. 1 that the Chaunkari in question has already been demolished. He argued that the order of eviction regarding the Chhapar is wholly without jurisdiction because this is not in consonance with notice Annexure P.2. The petitioner had not been given any opportunity to meet this case. He had not been required to prove that he was not in unauthorised occupation of the land over which the disputed Chhapar had been set up. The averments in the return filed by the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 1 bear out the contention of the learned counsel. It has been very candidly admitted therein that due to an oversight the Collector did not include the encroachment made by the petitioner by constructing a Chhapar on the Panchayat land in the notice given to the petitioner.;