Saru Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

premises in compliance of order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P-17) passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar. 1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P-17) passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, permitting execution of warrants and handing over possession of the premises to the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited (in short, 'the PSIEC'). A still further prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Collector, Mohali (under the Public Premises Act, 1973), directing handing over of the aforesaid premises. Another prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 29.07.

2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Collector, Mohali, Rupnagar, which is an eviction order passed under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act'), in respect of the aforesaid premises. Yet another prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 29.08.2000 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Joint Managing Director, PSIEC, whereby allotment of the industrial shed adjoining Plot No.C-89 (opposite water workds IFP), Phase VII, Mohali was cancelled. 1.2 Apart from the aforestated prayers, the petitioner also seeks quashing of Letter of Intent dated 09.05.2000 (Annexure P-28) issued in favour of respondent No.8 (Suri Associates).

1.3 Another prayer has been made by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct respondent No.2-PSIEC to consider and accept the viable offers of settlement; and to further direct the

respondents to take all such steps that may be necessary to restore the title and the possession of the aforesaid premises. 2.

Briefly, the petitioner claims herself to be the sole proprietor of S.S. Industries. It is stated that pursuant to an auction notice (Annexure P-1), an auction was held by respondent No.2-PSIEC on 17.07.1997 in respect of a shed situated in the Industrial Focal Point, Phase VII, Mohali. It is stated that in the auction notice, although the shed had been referred to as C-89 admeasuring 1000 square yards but the auction was conducted in respect of plot admeasuring 4100 square yards, adjoining Plot No.C-89 (opposite Water Works) Industrial Focal Point, Phase VII, Mohali, which was announced at the time of auction. Petitioner claims to have made a bid for the aforesaid Plot admeasuring 4100 square yards, adjoining to Plot No.C89, and the said property was allotted to the petitioner on leasehold basis vide letter dated 28.07.

1997 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner further states that a Possession Certificate dated 29.07.1997 was also issued to her and that she had taken over the possession of property in question, although, no area was mentioned in the allotment letter. It is stated that since a correct allotment letter was not issued to the petitioner, accordingly there was no occasion for her to deposit the first installment, which had fallen due on 16.01.1998. Petitioner claims that she had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque bearing No.034078 on 19.01.1999, and thereafter, she did not pursue the matter as she had already been granted the possession of plot in question and according to her, the Building Plans were deemed to have been sanctioned.

3.

It is a pleaded case of the petitioner that pursuant to order dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Collector, Mohali under Sections 5 and 7 of the 1973 Act, Tehsildar, Mohali, visited the property in question with an attempt to take over the possession. It is also the admitted case of petitioner that at that point in time, she became aware as regards the ex parte order dated 29.08.2000 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Joint Managing Director of respondent No.2-PSIEC, thereby cancelling the allotment of property; and also regarding an order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P-6), whereby the eviction of petitioner from the Plot in question was ordered. Petitioner claims that there was an understanding with respondent No.2-PSIEC that in case petitioner submits an amount of Rs.22,08,000/- then no further action for evicting her would be taken. Although, petitioner states that she had deposited the said amount by way of a cheque, however, it is also stated that the said cheque was returned to her subsequently.

4.

Petitioner further states that since she apprehended threat of dispossession, she accordingly filed a Civil Suit bearing No.436 dated 08.12.2009, seeking a permanent injunction, wherein status quo order was passed, however, the said suit was initially dismissed in default on 07.12.2012 and later on restored on 08.01.2016, but ultimately, the said suit was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure P-11), with liberty to file fresh Civil Suit on the same cause of action.

5.

Petitioner still further states that she had requested for a One Time Settlement by submitting an application dated 06.10.2010, and in response thereto, petitioner claims that she was assured that her proposal

would be accepted, if she withdraws the Court cases and surrenders the green area/belt behind the Plot in question. Petitioner further claims to have submitted a cheque bearing No.714406 dated 25.10.2011 for an amount of Rs.46,09,062/-, which was subsequently returned to her on 22.05.2012. 6.

In the meanwhile, it is submitted that respondent No.2-PSIEC filed an application for restoration of the execution proceedings, seeking execution of eviction order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P-6), which was dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure P-16), however, the subsequent appeal filed by respondent No.2-PSIEC was allowed vide order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P-17) passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, directing execution of warrants of possession qua the aforesaid premises. It appears that petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P-17) by way of filing an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, S.A.S. Nagar, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure P-18).

7.

It transpires that petitioner filed a Civil Suit bearing No.361 dated 24.05.2018, wherein the following reliefs were sought for:- "

8.

It is borne out that the learned Sub Divisional Magistarte-cumCollector, Mohali, vide order dated 18.01.2019 (Annexure P-19), directed Tehsildar, Mohali to take possession of the demised premises in terms of order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P-6) and in pursuance thereof, the Additional District Magistrate, Mohali sought for police help. 9.

Petitioner states that the orders against the property in question could not be executed and in the meanwhile, she filed another Civil Suit No.1115 of 2023, seeking permanent injunction for restraining respondent No.2-PSIEC as well as Tehsildar S.A.S. Nagar from entering, interfering, alienating, dispossessing petitioner/S.S. Industries from its peaceful

possession of the Plot in question with a further declaration that letter dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-24) was illegal, null and void. However, the said suit is stated to have been withdrawn by the petitioner. 10.

Concededly, the possession of the property in question was taken over by the concerned authority/Station House Officer on 22.12.2023. Although, petitioner claims that possession has been taken over after sunset and no inventory of the articles lying in the premises was prepared, apart from stating that no proper procedure was followed while taking possession. 11.

That apart, in paragraph No.28 of the instant writ petition, the following averments have been made:- "

25.

In this view of the matter, the instant writ petition would be clearly barred by gross delay and laches.

26.

It would also be apparent from the facts narrated in the present writ petition that the petitioner, after withdrawal of the writ petitions from this Court, had filed Civil Suits, which were also withdrawn, and now the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. Once the challenge to the order dated 29.08.2000 (Annexure P-5), cancelling allotment of shed/plot, was withdrawn by withdrawing CWP No.7818 of 2015 and also the subsequent CWP No.1628 of 2022 (withdrawn on 12.09.2023), it appears that the petitioner has adopted all means to keep the issue alive on one pretext or the other with some oblique motive and such a conduct is liable to be deprecated.

27.

It is also noticed that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by making a wrong declaration in paragraph No.45 of the writ petition that the earlier writ petition No.7818 of 2015, challenging order/letter dated 29.08.2000 (Annexure P-5), wherein allotment of

industrial shed/plot was cancelled; was withdrawn on 07.09.2015 with liberty to file afresh, however, no such liberty was granted. It is thus apparent that the conduct of petitioner is not above board and petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands.

28.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition; and resultantly, the same is dismissed.