B.S.Dhillon, S.S.Sidhu, JJ. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3786 and 4219 of 1978, because the points of law involved in these petitions are common. The said petitions are being disposed of after issuing notice of motion to She respondents.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Chuni Lal in Civil Writ No. 3786 of 1978 and respondent No. 4 in Civil Writ No. 4219 of 1978 were allotted the sites in dispute. They raised construction over these sites. The Estate officer issued notices to the said owners and also consequently to the petitioners who were tenants of the sites in question, that they having violated the conditions of allotment, the sites in question were likely to be resumed. After the notices were issued, the resumption order was passed by the Estate Officer against which appeals wore filed by the owners, which were also dismissed. The revision petitions before the Chief Commissioner are pending. The petitioners, who are the tenants of the premises in dispute, were proceeded against by the authorities for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. After due notices were given to the petitioners, orders were passed by the competent authority ordering their eviction. The petitioners filed appeals before the District Judge, Chandigarh. These appeals have also been dismissed.
(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection has been taken that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as the Petitioners are guilty of misstating the facts inasmuch as the petitioners alleged in the petitions that in appeals filed against the resumption order stay of proceedings were ordered, but in fact no such stay order was passed. It has further been contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners cannot be held to be authorized occupants as the sites have been resumed by the Estate Officer and thus their eviction has been ordered in accordance with law. It has been contended that since the revision petitions filed by the landlords are pending before the Chief Commissioner, these writ petitions are premature and the same may be dismissed as such.;