High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab & Anr - CWP-4592-2006  RD-P&H 1824 (20 March 2006)
C.W.P. No. 4592 of 2006
Date of Decision: 24.3.2006
State of Punjab and another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
PRESENT: Mr. P.C. Suman, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
This petition prays for quashing order dated 18.1.2006 (P-6), declining the prayer of the petitioner for allotment of land under the wooden khoka (kiosk). The aforementioned order has been passed in pursuance to the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court on 1.8.2005 in C.W.P. No. 11714 of 2005. The Division Bench while quashing a notice issued to the petitioner had directed the Municipal Council, Phagwara, to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law. It was further observed that before ordering eviction of the petitioner, the respondents were to examine the issue relating to the entitlement of the petitioner to seek regularisation of their possession in accordance with the policy framed by the Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is admitted to be a tenant of the Municipal Council, C.W.P. No. 4592 of 2006
Phagwara and, therefore, the policy dated 18.5.1998 (P-2) fully applies to him. In this regard he has referred to the admission of the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Phagwara, in the court proceedings dated 10.5.1993 (P-7). According to the learned counsel, the petitioner becomes entitle to the allotment of land on the ground that he is a lessee/a tenant.
Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that by the impugned order dated 18.1.2006, the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Phagwara, has found that the petitioner was having a temporary Teh Bazari (temporary permission to use land against payment) and as per the rules the same can be cancelled at any time. The status of the petitioner as determined by the Executive Officer is not that of a tenant/lessee. The Executive Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner to be a lessee in the following words:-
" In continuation with the above subject and in compliance of order of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 8.12.2005 passed in C.W.P. No. 17414 of 2005, received in Municipal Council, Phagwara on 19.8.2005 vide receipt No. 167, the case has been considered. Because the land under Khokha was given on temporary Teh Bazari Basis and as per rules, the same can be cancelled/closed at any time. Hence you have no right qua this land. In this regard the Municipal Council has also got the legal advice from our legal Advisor who has clarified in his report that you have no right to get this land, because you are neither the tenant of the Municipal Council nor Committee has given the same to you on lease basis. Temporary Teh-Bazari can be cancelled at any time."
C.W.P. No. 4592 of 2006
The argument that there is admission in the court proceedings dated 10.5.1993 (P-7) has also not impressed us because firstly there can not be any admission against the record and secondly the so called admission is too vague. It only says that `these Khokha Walas are the tenants of Municipal Council, Phagwara and they are in possession of land belonging to Municipal Council'. Such a statement by no stretch of imagination could be considered as admission within the meaning of Section 17 of the Evidence Act,
1872. Therefore, there is no merit in the aforementioned contention raised by the learned counsel.
For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
March 24, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.