Pahar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31814
1 WP-6119-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6119 of 2017
CNR No.: MPHC030225632017
PAHAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Kushwah - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Dy. Solicitor General for respondents
No. 1 and 4/UOI.
Ms. Rupa Rekha Panda - Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"The petitioners therefore most humbly pray that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition. It is, therefore,
prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the
petition of the petitioner and may kindly be quashed the impugned
order dtd. 06-07-2017 Annexure P/5 and may kindly be directed to
the respondent No.2 to not recover the penal charges from the
petitioner, in the interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner, while
working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the CRPF, has challenged the order
dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure P/5), whereby penal rent of Rs.3,93,833/- was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31814
2 WP-6119-2017
imposed upon him in respect of Type-II Government Quarter No. 401 at

Gwalior. It is submitted that the accommodation was allotted to the petitioner
on the recommendation of his department when he was posted in Jammu and
Kashmir. Subsequently, upon his transfer to Raipur, Chhattisgarh, a
Naxalite-affected area, his department recommended extension of the
allotment vide letter dated 06.06.2015 (Annexure P/3). Despite the
petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2015 (Annexure P/4), the allotment
was not extended. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated
17.07.2017 (Annexure P/6), seeking exemption from penal rent, which was
recommended by respondent No. 4 in view of the Union Government
policies dated 14.07.2012 and 24.05.2016 (Annexure P/7), however,
respondent No. 2 failed to consider the same.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a
low-paid employee and the recovery of such a huge amount is arbitrary,
contrary to the applicable Government policies, and causes undue hardship
to him and his family. The petitioner's wife and children vacated the
accommodation on 24.05.2017 pursuant to the order dated 12.04.2017 passed
in W.P. No. 2281/2017, and Rs.8,485/- was paid towards electricity and
water charges (Annexure P/8). Learned counsel also alleged harassment due
to mala fides and political pressure. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for
quashing the impugned order dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure P-5) and directing
the respondents not to recover the penal rent from the petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 4 submitted
that the present petition is the fourth round of litigation concerning recovery
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31814
3 WP-6119-2017
of outstanding licence fee, water charges and damage rent for unauthorized

retention of Government Quarter. It is submitted that the petitioner was
transferred from Gwalior to Srinagar on 03.08.2011, and the allotment of the
quarter was subject to the condition that it would be vacated when required.
Despite repeated notices and extension of permission to retain the quarter up
to 31.03.2015, the petitioner neither vacated the accommodation nor cleared
the outstanding dues. The allotment was subsequently cancelled, and the
petitioner continued in unauthorized occupation. It is further submitted that
the damage rent was calculated in accordance with the Government of India
orders, including the revised rates of 20 times the licence fee, and that an
amount of approximately Rs.38.24 lakh, including damage rent and water
charges, remained recoverable. The respondents contend that the earlier writ
petitions, namely W.P. No. 531/2016, W.P. No. 3433/2016 and W.P. No.
22811/2017, had already dealt with the matter and that the petitioner failed to
settle the dues despite the directions issued by this Court. The recovery
proceedings are stated to be lawful under the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. It is also submitted that the petitioner
has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Act and
that the present petition is barred under Section 15. Accordingly, respondents
No. 1 to 3 submit that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be
dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that the
petitioner was permitted to retain the government accommodation only up to
31.03.2015, subject to payment of outstanding dues, and his occupation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31814
4 WP-6119-2017
became unauthorized from 01.04.2015. Despite subsequent permission to

retain the accommodation up to 15.05.2016, subject to payment of arrears of
Rs.67,570/-, the petitioner neither paid the amount nor vacated the premises
and finally vacated it on 24.05.2017. It is further submitted that the damage
charges were assessed in accordance with the applicable CPWD rates and
the Office Memorandum dated 07.09.2016. It is submitted that out of the
total outstanding amount of Rs.3,90,931/-, the petitioner deposited only
Rs.8,484/-, leaving Rs.3,82,446/- recoverable. The demand relates to damage
charges and water charges, not interest under Section 7(2A) of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Hence, the
recovery is lawful, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The principal question for consideration is whether the respondents
were justified in imposing penal rent of Rs.3,93,833/- upon the petitioner
without adequately considering the circumstances in which the notice to
vacate the accommodation was communicated to him and the fact that he
vacated the quarter within approximately two months of receiving such
notice.
7. There is no dispute that the petitioner was required to comply with
the conditions of allotment and that transfer to another place does not, by
itself, confer an indefinite right to retain government accommodation. The
government is entitled to recover ordinary licence fee for the period of
occupation and, where the requirements of law are satisfied, damages for
unauthorized occupation. However, the amount recoverable towards
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31814
5 WP-6119-2017
damages must be determined in accordance with the applicable statutory

provisions, allotment conditions and Government orders.
8. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically contended that the
earlier notices were issued to the CRPF authorities and not directly served
upon him. According to him, he received notice to vacate the quarter only in
March 2017 and his family vacated the accommodation on 24.05.2017. This
circumstance is material while examining whether the petitioner deliberately
continued to retain the accommodation despite having been informed that it
was required to be vacated.
9. A notice issued to the department and a notice actually
communicated to the employee are distinct matters. The mere issuance of a
notice to the departmental authorities/respondent No. 4 does not, without
examination of the relevant record, conclusively establish that the petitioner
had received the same notice at an earlier date. The respondents were
required to consider when the petitioner was actually informed and whether
he was afforded a reasonable opportunity to vacate the accommodation and
make alternative arrangements for his family.
10. The conduct of the petitioner after receiving notice is also relevant.
The petitioner vacated the accommodation on 24.05.2017, within
approximately two months of the notice which, according to him, was
received in March 2017. The respondents have not demonstrated, on the
material considered for the impugned demand, that the petitioner deliberately
continued to occupy the accommodation after receiving an earlier effective
direction to vacate it. In these circumstances, the period of occupation cannot
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31814
6 WP-6119-2017
be examined solely by referring to the date on which the department was

informed or the allotment was cancelled, without considering the petitioner's
actual knowledge and subsequent conduct.
11. Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 provides for recovery of arrears of rent and assessment
of damages for unauthorized occupation. Rule 8 of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 provides the relevant
factors to be considered while assessing damages. The statutory framework
requires the authority to determine the amount in accordance with the
applicable rules and relevant circumstances. The distinction between
ordinary licence fee and damages for unauthorized occupation must be
maintained.
12. The Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli
Neville Wadia, (2008) 3 SCC 279, while considering proceedings under the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971,
emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure and
affording the affected person an effective opportunity to put forward his
case. The decision supports the principle that action under the Act must
conform to the statutory procedure.
13. In the present case, the question is not whether the respondents can
ever recover damages for unauthorized occupation. The question is whether
the particular demand raised against the petitioner can be sustained without
adequate consideration of the fact that the earlier notices were issued to the
CRPF authorities, that the petitioner received notice only in March 2017, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31814
7 WP-6119-2017
that he vacated the accommodation on 24.05.2017. These circumstances

ought to have been considered while determining the extent of his liability.
14. This Court is of the view that, in the peculiar facts of the present
case, the imposition of penal rent for the disputed period, without adequately
considering the petitioner's actual receipt of notice and his conduct thereafter,
results in an unjust demand. The petitioner cannot be treated in the same
manner as an occupant who, despite having received an effective direction to
vacate the accommodation, deliberately continues to retain it without
justification.
15. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be completely absolved of
the liability to pay ordinary licence fee for the period during which the
accommodation remained in his occupation. Considering the circumstances
of the case, the ends of justice would be met by restricting his liability to
ordinary licence fee equivalent to two months' rent, with appropriate
adjustment of any amount already deposited towards the same.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure P/5) is hereby quashed to the extent that it
imposes penal rent/damage charges upon the petitioner. The respondents
shall be entitled to recover ordinary licence fee/normal rent, after giving
credit for any amount already paid towards such licence fee/normal rent.
17. The respondents shall also give due credit for the amount deposited
by the petitioner towards electricity and water charges. Any separately
established outstanding electricity or water charges may be recovered in
accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31814
8 WP-6119-2017
18. If any amount has already been recovered from the petitioner

towards penal rent in excess of the liability determined above, the
respondents shall calculate the excess amount and refund or adjust the same
in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
20. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 10/16/2026
6:38:45 PM