- (1.) THIS judgment disposes of Civil Writ Petition No. 171 of 1985, 6983,11268, 11269, 11270, 11271, 11275, 11276, 11486 of 1988, 5322, 10063 of 1989", 7930, 7934, 7936, 7937 of 1992.
(2.) IN CWP. No. 171 of 1985 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the order passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, reversing, on appeal the order dated September 9, 1981 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Faridkot. exercising the powers of the Collector (hereinafter the Collector) allowing the petitioner to continue in possession of Government land comprising Khasra No. 2276/1, 7 measuring 32 Kanals 19 Marias until the same was allotted to him in accordance with the Government instructions/rules. In other connected writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the orders passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Divisions, Ferozepur, affirming in appeals to orders passed by the Collector evicting the petitioner from the disputed Government land under the Punjab Public Premises and Lands (Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1973 ).
(3.) FACTS of C. W. P. No. 171 of 1985 first: Notice under Section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) was served on the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of eviction be not passed against him. The Collector, after hearing the petitioner, permitted him to continue to occupy the land till the same is allotted to him in accordance with the Rules and instructions. The State of Punjab through Tehsildar, Faridkot challenged the order of the Collector, Faridkot in appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur (hereinafter the Commissioner ). The appeal was allowed observing thus : "as per revenue record, there is no second opinion that land belongs to Provincial Government and falls within the public premises. The respondent also admits this fact in his written reply. The only aspect, which was imperatively to be considered by the learned Collector was as to whether the respondent was occupying the premises authorisedly or without any lease-deed or grant etc. This has not been done by the learned Collector while passing the impugned order. Moreover, the State of Punjab is the owner of the land in question as per the revenue record, who has been condemned unheard. The impugned order has thus been passed by the learned Collector in exercise of his powers not vested in him. In the light of the fact that the respondent is occupying the land in question unauthorisedly which is apparently owned by the State Government as per revenue record, the respondent has no locus standi to continue to occupy the public premises for unlimited period. Viewed in this context, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is accepted. ";