After 40 years of unauthorised occupation of public land, petitioners’ fresh allotment plea dismissed with ₹2 lakh costs

The 21 petitioners were engaged in constructing bus and truck bodies on land acquired by the State of Punjab in 1984 for establishing a grain market.

In an earlier proceeding, the Supreme Court, by order dated 12.12.1991, directed the State to allot nine acres of land to the petitioners at the market rate prevailing on 29.03.1990, to be determined by the Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab, whose determination would be final and binding.

In 1998, the Financial Commissioner fixed the price of the nine acres at approximately ₹4.28 crores, and the petitioners were called upon to deposit the amount. They neither deposited the amount nor vacated the acquired land.

Eviction proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 were allowed by the Collector in 2014.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioners’ Special Leave Petitions on 15.01.2026 and directed the State to remove the encroachment and file a compliance affidavit.

Despite these orders, the petitioners continued to occupy the land and filed the present writ petition seeking allotment of nine acres at the current fair market value, relying upon their asserted need for rehabilitation and livelihood.

1. Whether the petitioners, despite having failed to accept or pay for the nine acres offered pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order dated 12.12.1991, were entitled to a fresh direction for allotment of land at the current fair market value?

2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution when the petitioners remained in unauthorized occupation despite final eviction orders and the Supreme Court’s direction to remove the encroachment?

3. Whether the petitioners’ conduct justified dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs and continuation of the eviction process?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which writ relief is discretionary and may be refused to litigants who approach the Court with inequitable conduct or abuse its process.

It relied upon the binding terms of the Supreme Court’s order dated 12.12.1991, which required payment for the nine acres at the market rate prevailing on 29.03.1990, as determined by the Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab, with that determination being final and binding.

The Court also applied the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, particularly Sections 4, 7 and 9, under which unauthorized occupants could be directed to vacate public premises and pay assessed dues, subject to statutory appeal.

The Court further followed the final judgments upholding the eviction proceedings and the Supreme Court’s order dated 15.01.2026 directing removal of the encroachment.

The Court held that the petitioners had repeatedly been given an opportunity to obtain nine acres: initially at the 1990 market rate pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1991 order, and later, during the LPA proceedings, at the prevailing market value.

The petitioners did not pay the amount of ₹4.28 crores fixed in 1998 and expressly declined the offer of allotment at the current market value because it was unaffordable.

Their challenge to eviction had already failed before the Collector, the appellate authority, the Single Judge, the Division Bench, and the Supreme Court.

Consequently, their continued possession was unauthorized, and the present petition seeking a fresh allotment while resisting eviction was treated as an abuse of the writ jurisdiction and as vexatious litigation.

The Court therefore found no equitable or legal basis to grant further relief.

The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to a fresh allotment of nine acres at the current fair market value after refusing earlier offers and continuing in unauthorized occupation.

Exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 were imposed jointly and severally upon all petitioners, payable within two months to the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Lawyers Family Welfare Fund, with proof of deposit to be filed before the Registry.

The Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib, was directed to remove the encroachment within one week and file a compliance report before the Court.