Pawan Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5487 P&H

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.151                                        CWP-12094-2022 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision : 30.05.2022

Pawan Kumar and another                                        ..... Petitioners

                                     VERSUS
Union of India and others                                     ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:      Mr. Jawahar Narang, Advocate and
              Mr. Lakshay Sikri, Advocate, for the petitioners.

              Mrs. Anita Balyan, Advocate,
              for the respondents-Railways.

                                         *****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioners purchased the land in dispute from Manohar Lal

and Tek Chand in the year 2003/2013 respectively. Thereafter, they had

been utilizing their land for an office. Prior to the purchase aforementioned,

Manohar Lal and Tek Chand had approached the civil Court for grant of

decree of injunction as the railway authorities intended to evict them

forcibly. Injunction was granted by the civil Court and it was directed that

the predecessor of the petitioners cannot be evicted except in accordance

with law. Now, in the proceedings initiated by the railway authorities under

the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971

(hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioners have been ordered to be

evicted. Their appeals have also dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant

proceedings, the petitioners had raised the objections that the title of the

railway authorities is in dispute and thus, the authorities under the Act had

no jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction. Reliance has been placed upon

1 of 2

Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India and another, 2019

(20) SCC 705.

The argument is mis-conceived. A perusal of the judgment and

decree dated 04.05.1987 passed in the earlier civil proceedings shows that in

para No.7 thereof, it has been recorded as follows:-

'7. Accordingly, both the parties have to led evidence with

respect to title, nor even the suit land been at the shops stands

demarcated whether or not the same is of Railway Department,

the question of title remains undetermined but the evidence of

plaintiff regarding their possession of shop No.2, 22, 17, 15, 9,

16, 3 and 10 respectively going unrebutted, plaintiff suit

succeed.'

The above observation does not conclude that the railway

authorities had failed to establish their title. Being an injunction suit, the

parties had not led any evidence with regard to the title and accordingly, the

observation has been returned that question of title remains undetermined.

This observation cannot create a prima facie case in favour of the

petitioners. Thus, the judgment in Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji

(supra) is not attracted. Apart from the aforementioned observation, nothing

else has been brought to my notice to show that the railway authorities do

not have title in respect of the land in dispute.

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

                                                                (SUDHIR MITTAL)
                                                                     JUDGE
30.05.2022
Ramandeep Singh

Whether speaking / reasoned                                        Yes / No
Whether Reportable                                                 Yes/ No

                                     2 of 2