P&H HC Upholds Eviction Of Residents Claiming Possession Since 1947 From Public Land Allotted To Nai Samaj: Long Possession Alone Gives No Right

In brief

The question

Whether the appellants’ long-standing possession gave them an enforceable right to remain on public land owned by MC Gurugram

The court held

The Court held that the appellants had no enforceable right to remain on the public land merely by reason of long possession, and that MC Gurugram had properly invoked the Act of 1972.

It also directed

Finding no merit in the appeal or any basis to interfere with the Single Judge’s judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal without an order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The disputed land vests in the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram (MC Gurugram). The appellants claimed possession from 1947 and had constructed houses on the land.

¶ 1

Some of the land was allotted to members of the Nai community in 1976, but possession was not delivered to them.

¶ 1

After eviction notices were issued in 2016, a Division Bench quashed those notices and directed MC Gurugram to initiate proceedings under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. MC Gurugram then brought proceedings under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act. The competent authority ordered the appellants’ eviction, the statutory appeal was dismissed, and a Single Judge upheld both orders. The appellants challenged that decision in this Letters Patent Appeal.

¶ 1–2

02Issues

i.Whether the appellants’ long-standing possession gave them an enforceable right to remain on public land owned by MC Gurugram

¶ 6

ii.Whether MC Gurugram could maintain eviction proceedings under the Act of 1972 in respect of land partly allotted to the Nai community

¶ 3, 6

iii.Whether the eviction orders and the Single Judge’s judgment disclosed any illegality or perversity warranting appellate interference

¶ 2, 6

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972, under which proceedings may be brought to evict unauthorised occupants from public premises and recover rent or damages, as applicable.

¶ 2, 6

It also applied the principle that long possession, without right, title, or lawful authority, does not by itself entitle a person to remain in occupation of public land.

¶ 6

The Court further relied on the prior Division Bench direction requiring MC Gurugram to initiate eviction proceedings under the Act.

¶ 2, 6

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 Section 5Section 7

04Reasoning

The appellants could not dispute that the land belonged to MC Gurugram, and the record showed that the allotment to the Nai community had not transferred ownership or possession from the Corporation.

¶ 6

Their claim rested principally on prolonged possession, which did not establish a lawful entitlement to occupy public land. As owner, and with an obligation to deliver the allotted land to the lawful allottees, MC Gurugram was entitled to pursue eviction under the Act; it had also been directed to do so by the earlier Division Bench.

¶ 6

The appellants had an opportunity to respond and a hearing before the eviction orders, and had pursued the available statutory appeal. The Court found no procedural defect, illegality, or perversity in the orders or the Single Judge’s decision.

¶ 6

05Holding

The Court held that the appellants had no enforceable right to remain on the public land merely by reason of long possession, and that MC Gurugram had properly invoked the Act of 1972.

¶ 6

¶ 6–8

LawLens.Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF