- (1.) Appellants impugn the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under Punjab Public Premises and Lands (Eviction and Land Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'), has been upheld.
(2.) The facts culminating in filing the present appeal are that the Panchayat Samiti, Ferozepur filed ejectment proceedings under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act against the appellants in respect of 44 kanal and 4 marlas of land situated in village Gulam Hussainwala and recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per acre for the year 2005-2006 till the actual delivery of possession. The Collector, Ferozepur dismissed the eviction application of the Panchayat Samiti vide order dated 6.10.2006, against which, an appeal was filed under Section 9 of the Act before the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur. Learned Appellate Court, decided the case vide order dated 21.8.2007 and the case was remanded to the court of learned Collector, Ferozepur with the direction to decide the same afresh by taking into consideration whether the land in question was given on lease to the respondents, if not, then in what capacity respondents came into possession of the same On remand, the learned Collector, vide its order dated 10.9.2009, decided that the respondents had rightly deposited the lease amount by enhancing 10% of the rental and consequently, the application filed by the Panchayat Samiti was dismissed. The said order was assailed in appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act. The Appellate Authority, as a matter of fact, found that the alleged lease money deposited by the respondents, was less than the actual prevailing rate of lease money in the area. The Appellate Court referred to the notification dated 25.4.1984 and held that the same was not applicable as the respondents never took the land in question in auction. The aforesaid notification was applicable only in a case where the land was auctioned on lease to a person and such person gave consent before three months prior to the expiry of lease period to pay the lease amount by enhancing 10% of the existing lease money. In such a situation the lease could have been given to the said person. However, finding the facts altogether different, the aforesaid notification was found inapplicable as nothing was brought on record to assume that the possession of the respondents over the land in question was on account of any process of lease having been released in their favour. The possession of the respondents over the land in question was held unauthorised.
(3.) Learned Appellate Court also emphasised upon the import of Civil Court decree dated 30.5.1997, vide which it was ordered that the plaintiffs will not be evicted from the land in dispute except in due course of law. The same was also the import of Civil Court judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003. Thereafter, the Panchayat Samiti filed eviction proceedings as per law. Learned Appellate Court highlighted the applicability of notification dated 25.4.1984 in those cases where initial entry of the person was through lawful means and, thereafter, the payment of lease money @ enhanced rate of 10% of the existing lease money was held permissible if the occupant agreed three months prior to the expiry of lease for such enhancement. Precisely for this reason, the case was remanded to the prescribed authority to give finding whether the possession of the appellants was on account of any lease given in auction or otherwise. Since the appellants failed to produce any cogent evidence before the Court to show that the land in question was ever leased out to them or their predecessor through some auction, therefore, the Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 21.2.2011 held that the possession of the appellants on the land in question was of unauthorised occupant. Hence, the right of the Panchayat Samiti was duly acknowledged and the order of the prescribed authority dated 9.9.2009 was set aside and the appellants were ordered to be evicted from the land in question.;