JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Ram Parshad. The prayer made in the petition is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated February 12, 2001 passed by the Collector, Phillaur and the Order dated April 30, 2002 passed by the Commissioner under the provisions of the Punjab public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. Copies of the aforesaid Orders have been appended as Annexures P-2 and P-5 respectively with the present petition.
2. Certain facts be noticed:-
The petitioner has averred that he and his wife Rajni Bala are employed by the Forest Department and were serving at Phillaur on daily wage basis. The petitioner and his family are residing in a house. The aforesaid house is claimed to have been allotted to the petitioner and his family by the Forest Department. Since the petitioner was apprehending his forcible dis-possession from the aforesaid accommodation at the hands of the respondents, he approached the Civil Court through a suit for permanent injunction. His suit was decreed on September 6, 1995. The defendants in the aforesaid suit, (the present respondent No. 1), the Divisional Forest Officer and the other Forest Authorities were restrained from dis-possessing the aforesaid plaintiff except in due course of law. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. The aforesaid appeal was also dismissed by the learned District Judge vide Judgment dated October 23, 1997. The decree passed by the learned trial Court was upheld. A copy of the judgment of the learned District Judge has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the present petition.
3. After the matter was finalised before the Civil Court, the Forest Department and State of Punjab initiated proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Eviction of the present petitioner from the building in dispute was sought. It was claimed that the petitioner Ram Parshad was living un-authorisedly in the aforesaid building. The aforesaid proceedings were contested by the petitioner. He claimed that he was employed for some time on daily wage basis. However, subsequently he claimed that the building was in possession of his wife Rajni Bala, who was also working on daily wage basis with the department.
4. The learned Sub Division Magistrate (exercising the powers of the Collector) vide Order dated February 12, 2001 found that the petitioner was an un-authorised occupant of the building in question. It was also held that neither the petitioner was the employee of the department nor he had any other connection with the department. Even otherwise, a person employed on daily wage basis had no right to occupy any government accommodation and, as such, after holding that the petitioner was unauthorised occupant of the building in dispute, ordered his eviction. A copy of the Order dated February 12, 2001 is appended as Annexure P-2 with the present petition.
5. The petitioner felt aggrieved. He filed an appeal before the learned District Collector, Jalandhar (exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Act). The aforesaid appeal was heard by the District Collector. After taking into consideration the entire material available on record, the learned District Collector (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) also upheld the findings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Collector. Accordingly, Order Annexure P-2 was upheld by the learned District Collector. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. A copy of the order dated April 30, 2002 passed by the District Collector (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) is appended as Annexure P-5 with the present petition.
6. The petitioner is aggrieved against the orders, Annexures P-2 and P-5 and has approached this Court through the present petition.
7. Upon put to notice, respondent No. 1 has put in appearance. A written statement has been filed. The claim of the petitioner has been contested. Respondent No. 1 has maintained that the petitioner was just employed on daily wage basis and, as such, the question of allotment of the building as residential accommodation to the petitioner did not arise at all. It has further been maintained that the building in question was never allotted to the petitioner or his wife. It has been claimed that the petitioner is in fact in unauthorised occupation.
8. During the course of the present writ petition, respondents have filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 28235 of 2003. The prayer made in the aforesaid application is to vacate the interim orders. A notice of the aforesaid application was issued to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. On a joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition itself was ordered to be heard along with the miscellaneous application.
9. The arguments in the main case have been held in detail.
10. Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have vehemently argued that the order of eviction. Annexure P-2 as passed by respondent No. 3 and as upheld by respondent No. 2 while passing the Order Annexure P-5, are wholly contrary to law and factually un-sustainable. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner and his wife, both were in service in the Forest Department. Whereas the services of the petitioner were terminated, however, his wife Rajni Bala was still continuing in service. Accordingly, the aforesaid accommodation had been allotted earlier to the petitioner and after the dispensation of his services to his wife Rajni Bala. Since no order withdrawing the benefits of the aforesaid accommodation had ever been passed by the department against Rajni Bala, therefore, the eviction orders could not have been passed against the petitioner or his family, ft has further been argued by the learned counsel that the Range Forest Officer had no authorisation in law to initiate the eviction proceedings against the petitioner. On that basis, the learned counsel maintains that the orders Annexures P-2 and P-5 are liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, Shri C.M. Munjal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has, with equal vehemence, argued that the petitioner was apparently in unauthorised occupation of the government premises. According to Shri Munjal, one of the service rules applicable to the department even entitled the petitioner or his family members to reside in a government accommodation. Shri Munjal further maintains that the petitioner, prior to the termination of his services and his wife, both were serving with the department on daily wage basis. No benefit of any government accommodation was available to a daily wage employee. It is further argued by Shri Munjal that the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with as far back as in the year 1992. The termination of his services had been upheld by the Labour Court. Thereafter, the petitioner had no concern with the department. On that basis, Shri Munjal has reiterated the grounds of eviction and has supported the orders Annexures P-2 and P-5 passed by the competent authorities.
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival pleas raised on behalf of the parties by their learned counsel. I have also gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel.
13. In my considered view, there is no merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
14. The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner had been terminated in the year 1992. His termination has been upheld by the Labour Court. After the aforesaid termination, the petitioner has no concern with the department. The eviction orders clearly show that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the premises in dispute. No material has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that there was any order of allotment of the house in dispute either to him or his wife subsequently. Mere allegations claiming that the house in dispute had been allotted to the wife of the petitioner are not sufficient to support the aforesaid claim. The petitioner has even failed to show that at any point of time, he himself or his wife subsequently has even made any payment of any rent/other charges with regard to the aforesaid accommodation. It is apparent that the petitioner is merely occupying the house in question totally un-authorisedly and without any charges. In this view of the matter, there is neither any law nor any equity in favour of the petitioner.
15. Faced with this difficulty, Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the eviction proceedings were never initiated against the wife of the petitioner Rajni Bala. According to learned counsel since no notice of eviction proceedings had been served upon the petitioner, therefore, the eviction orders were liable to be set aside on the aforesaid ground alone.
16. I am afraid even this ground raised by the learned counsel is without any merit.
17. A perusal of the orders passed by the Civil Court would clearly show that the petitioner had filed a civil suit claiming permanent injunction against the State of Punjab and the officers of the Forest Department. In the aforesaid civil suit, the petitioner had claimed that he was in possession of the premises. He had never claimed that the aforesaid house was in possession of his wife as is now being claimed by him. It is apparent that the petitioner is trying to adopt shifting stands only to suit his own convenience.
18. No other point has been urged.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.