Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT :-(1) This Act may be called the [Haryana1) [Punjab2) public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 19721/19732. (2) It extends to the whole of the,State of Haryana/Punjab . (3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the [10th day of August, 1959-in Hr.] [27 day of November, 1959-in Pb.] except Sections 11, 18, and 19 -which shall come into force at once. CASE LAW Subsequent application filed by Gram Panchayat for eviction of the respondents was held to have attracted the doctrine of resjudicata-proceedings under the 1973 Act are' summary-Authority under the 1973 has no power to decide question of title of land-Questions of title and possession are to be looked into only to the extent of deciding case of eviction-As held by Apex Court in 1997(4) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 401, doctrine of resjudicata is not applicable to summary proceedings unless the statute expressly applies to such matters-Authorities are not civil courts nor is the petition a plaint- Doctrine of RESJUDICATA is not applicable-Second application is maintainable-Civil procedure Code, 1908-S. 11; Gram Panchayat Surewala v. Commissioner, Ferozepur, 1998(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 46. Writ Petition is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition directing respondents, authorities and restraining them from demolishing the religious place--Quashing of order is sought as no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, orders are ultra vires to the provisions of the Act- During the pendency of petition a large number of documents have been filed to prove the lands as not ''Public Premises"--Impugned notice/orders are set aside-Matter referred back to Estate Officer to decide afresh if the –land falls within the ambit Of public premises after taking into consideration the additional evidence produced and hearing the parties-Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-S. 5-B(1); Mandir of Pir Sultan Mohammed Khan, Village Devi Nagar, District Panchkula v. Additional District Judge, Ambala and others . 2000(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (PB&HRY.) 24. 2 Public Permises and land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act SECTION- 2 Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971--Ss. 4 and 5-premises were ordered to be resumed-Tenants and owner were to ejected under noticed or were given no opportunity of hearing-Complete denial or principles of natural justice-Such pleas was raised in the lower appellate Court also that was brushed aside-Appeals allowed-Matter remanded back to competent authority for proceedings as per law-Constitution of India, Article 226-Capital of Punjab(Development & regulation Act, 1952, S. 8-A; Dr. Mohinder verma v. Chandigarh Administration; 1999(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P.&H.) D.B. 479.. Nine allottees out of a total of 169, were given notice under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-Petitioners allge discrimination and pray for injunction, denied by High Court-Held-Since the injunction, a discretionary order, has been denied by the High Court, learned Judge and the Division bench it is not deemed expedient under Art. 136 of the constitution to upset the orders of the High Court-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0. 39, Rs. 1 and 2; lumbinin Nagar Co- op. Housing Society ltd. and others v. Union of India and others; 1995(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER VOL 42 (S. t.) 514. Eviction-Apex Court had set up a High Power Committee to deal with and settle dispute of major and fiscal nature between Public Section undertakings to cut short the time consumed in litigation as also to avoid prassion on the courts-Petitioner sought a reference in the eviction case to be made to the High Power Committee Such petty disputes like eviction, are not directed to be deal with by High level officers whose duty and time is of very important nature; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v LIC of India; , . 1997(2} ALL INDIA LAND LAWS ,REPORTER VOL 42 (S. C.) 226 FOR CENTRAL ACT COMMENTARY Writ Petition is filed for issuance of writ in the-nature of prohibition directing respondents, authorities and restraining them from demolishing the religious place Quashing of order is sought as no opportunity of being heard. was given to pettioner, orders are ultra vires to the provisions of the Act- During the pendency of petition a large number of documents have been filed to prove the Iands as not "Public Premises"--Impugned notice/orders are set aside-Matter referred back to Estate Officer to decide afresh if the land ·falls within the ambit of public premises after taking into consideration the additional evidence produced and hearing the parties-Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971—S.5-B(1); Mandir of Pir Sultan Mohammed, Khan, Village Devi Nagar, District Panchkula v.Additional District Judge, Ambala and others. 2000(1} ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (PB&HRY.) 24. Eviction-Apex Court had set up a High Power Committee to deal with and settle dispute of major and fiscal nature between Public Section undertakings to cut short the time consumed in litigation as also to avoid prassion on the courts --pettioner sought a reference in the eviction case to be made ·to the High power committee- such petty disputes like eviction, are not directed to be deal with by High level officers whose duty and time is of very important nature; Steel authority of India Ltd. v. LlC of India. 1997(2} ALL INDIA LAND LAVVS REPORTER VOL.42(S.C) 226. Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery),Act 3 SECTION-2 FOR PUNJAB