Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
ISSUE OF NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST ORDER OF EVICATION.-( 1) If the Collector is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises situate, within his jurisdiction and they should be evicted, the collector shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all person concerned, to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) The notice shall-- (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned. that is to say, all persons who are or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3)The Collector shall cause the notice to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises or the estate. in which the public premises are situate, and in such other manner as may be prescribed whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (4) Where the Collector knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed. COMMENTARY -Sections 4 and 5-Coliector is to issue notice to all persons who are in unauthorised possession of public premises against order of eviction-issue of notice to one only who is also not a partner but attends to business, is not enough Specific provisions of Section 4 have not been followed-Case remanded to the Collector for deciding the matter &afresh. 1991(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAVVS REPORTER 533. -Composite notice under Sections 4 and 7(3)-Notice against eviction and payment of damages is a valid notice-Separate notice need not be issued after passing eviction order. Mohan Lall v. The Commissioner, Hissar Division and others. 1981 ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 24. 8 Public Permises and land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act SECTION--- 4 -Notice need not contain the Historical background of the public premises of the manner in which the encroachment was made. Jetha Nand v.. State of Haryana and others. 1981 ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 528. -Section 4-Additional land allotted to ex-Servicemen to augment income, possession given- Order allowing additional land cancelled, ex-servicemen directed to surrender the Iand-Purpose is to settle more exservicemen-Eviction order passed by the Collector,appeal dismissed by High Court in limine by speaking order-By special leave judgment challenged In Supreme Court-Held-Appellants have been in' possession for over 2 decades-;-Respondents case is more families are to be settled and no additional land available-Directed 3 acre out of 5 to be surrendered to accommodate 17 more exservicemen families. 1993(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 1. -Sections 4 and 9-Jamabandi-Earlier entries show the land in dispute in possession of proprietors of village but later it is shown as belonging to Gram Panchayat-Petitioner challenges the orders of the Collector thus declaring him in unauthorised Possession-Definite findings have to be given recording reasons how the subsequent entries in jamabandi were chaged--In the absence of such findings, orders of the appellate authority, quashed. 1993(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAVVS REPORTER410. Sections 4 and 5-Can a tenant of the resumed site (and building) be evicted under Public Premises Act as unauthorised occupation-when site is resumed and the building is automatically resumed unless demolished by the, Owner, site and building is automatically resumed unless demolished by the Owner, site and building become public premises- Tenant of this public premises if inducted by the erstwhile' Owner, who has lost his title the State becomes an unauthorised occupation- Can this be evicted under the Public Premises Act-Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952-S. 8A; H.KL Vijan v. Chandigarh Administration and others; 1997(2) ALLINDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P.&H.) 474. Sections 4, 7 and 15--Company and the firm are lessees on the land Owned by Railways-Railways enhanced the licence fee arbitrarily and the lessees stopped paying it-Action under Public Premises Act Initiated by the Railways Firm and Company file applications under S. 20 Of Arb. Act for appointment Of arbitrator as per terms of the lease-Held-Proceedings under P.P.Act already initiated, petition under S. 20 of Arb. Act is not maintainable as the arbitrator will have no jurisdiction in the matter of disputes failing under S.15 of the P.P. Act-Application dismissed- Arbitration Act, 194O-S. 20; Kesar Enterprlses Ltd. -Union of India; 1996(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (DELHI) 313. S.4(1)-Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952-Ss. 9 and ,1O-Notice issued to the petitioner under Public Premises Act for eviction-Prayer is for issuance of a Wit of mandamus for regulatisation of the construction made bu petitioner on, disputed site-order Of resumption passed cannot be set aside and this leads to the Conclusion of illegality of the construction made thereon - construction,' .. : _, ,,' • Made after. passing of the resumption order and dismissal of appeal and revision cannot be regularized- petitoner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong-writ petition without substance is liable to be rejected- Taking into a account , substantial amount Of money spent on construction, Court would like to give one Public Permises and land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act 9 SECTl0N-4 and 5 more opportunity to petitioner to retain possession by filing an application for reallotment of the plot in accordance with conditions laid down by administration --Administration thereafter. to sanction the building plan as per rules and regulations, to· regularise the construction-Failure to apply for reallotment would result in compliance of resumption orders; Gram Panchayat Surewala v. Commissioner, -Ferozepur, . 1998(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 212. Ss. 5 and 4-Houses resumed, petitioners evicted from the premises without notice and without following procedure-Claim to be tenants, under the owner on roomNo. 2 and 3 of second floor-Resumption was on account of misuse by the tenant on the ground floor and the owner--Held-it is difficult to hold if the petitioners were tenants under the Owner or were in occupation of the second floor when the house was resumed To entertain the claim, Estate Officer is directed to hold enquiry If petitioners were occupying the premises as tenants-In case they are found to be not in occupation, wit petition Would be deemed to have been dismissed-In case they are-found to be in occupation when the house was sealed, orders que them quashed -Capital of' Punjab(Development and Regulation) Act-S. SA; Piara Singh, v. Chandigarh Administration and others; 1996(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P.&H.) 147 • . Ss.·4 and 7-ReSpondent was ordered to be. evicted but Ld. Single Judge accepted his petition - Appeal by Gram Panchayat -Respondent claims to be in Cultivating possession of land forlat 30 years,. isa co-sharer and Biswedar in the . village - Land is entered in revenue recored as "MUSHTARKA MALKAN‖ Gram Panchayat says land was taken by him on lease in 1975- Panchayat is Owner of the land since 1956- On expiry of laese respondent becames unauthoirsed occupant-:Hence the proceedings- Panchayat has decided to use it for School, a public purpose Responent has not been able to prove possession for 30 Years or payment of lease money after 1975-76 - Thus unauthorised occupant-No equity in his favour-Eviction by trial Court upheld; Gram Panchayat Hindole v. Kanshi Ram • . 1998 (2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER(P&H)401. Sections 4 and 7-Gram Panchayat seeks eviction of respondent, Who tookland in dispute on lease in 1975 from. Gram Panchayat-No new lease entered or old one renewed, no rent or lease money Paid, respondent was in unauthorised occupation-Respondent claims to be a co-sharer ln cultivating possession for more than 3O years-Possession for 30 years is disputed-Not supported by evidence Whatsoever- Respondent has not produced any evidence to Show that he paid any lease money to Gram Panchayat after 1975-76-Thus in occupation Without payment-Unauthorised . possession-Appeal allowed; Gram Panchayat, Hindole v. Kanshi Ram • . 2000(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (PB. &HRY.) 166. FOR PUNJAB AND HARYANA .....