The Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,1973
Section 5. Eviction of unauthorized persons
(1) If, after considering the cause if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, the Collector may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, the Collector may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises or of the estate in which the public premises are situate.
(2)If any person refuses or fail to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days of the date of its publication under sub section, (I), the Collector or any other officer duly authorized by him in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as amay be necessary.
Under the next proceeding Section 4 the Collector has only to form an opinion that a person is in unauthorized occupation of public premises, before he can send him a show cause notice why he should not be evicted. If after hearing him and considering the evidence that such person may produce, the Collector is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized possession he may make an order of eviction giving reasons therefore and he is able to effectuate his order summarily.
Against an order under this Section and not under Section 4 which is intended merely for the issue of a notice as stated above. An appeal is maintainable only unde Section 9. cf. Mukhtiar Singh V Harbans Singh. 1981 Rev. L.R. 498. Where the open space situate between railway quarter and railway bungalow was held to be the railway property and it was occupied by some person unauthorisedly, the estate officer issued him a notice after satisfying himself about unauthorisedly, occupation. The occupier failed to appear to show cause the order of eviction passed was held to be proper. Ayodhya Prasad V Union of India. AIR 1983 MP 39.
On the other hand at common law under the CPC the aggrieved party gets the benefit of a trail by an ordinary court under ordinary law with a right of appeal, revision, etc. But this section make a short shrift of the whole affair by an executive order, subject no doubt to an appeal but that too is to an another executive officer, the Commissioner. Such a provision and another like section 7(2) under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,1959 were struck down by the Supreme Court on the ground that they provided tow alternative remedies, one more drastic than the other, at the discretion of the executive officer, thus resulting in discrimination. Northern India Caterers V Punjab State. AIR 1967 SC 1581. By inserting section 15, this Act has barred the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any suit for eviction or for recoveries, etc. made under the old Act of 1959 as well as barred suits for refund of rents assessed thereunder. The only point worth considering now seems to be whether in the absence of a procedure for determining what essentially is lis requiring judicial determination, it would be reasonable to confer this power on an executive officer. c.f. Raja Sahib of Nalagarh v Punjab State. AIR 1969 Delhi 194.
Where the Chandigarh Administration had been extendeing the period of lease in the case of some of the tenants after enchancing rent of their tenancies but it did not do so in other cases it w
as held that Govt. being owner
of the leased property it was competent to extend the lease period in one case and not in another case if in that particular case the tenants conduct and performance were not to their satisfaction, and this did not involve discrimination of Tilak Raj V Chandigarh Administration ” AIR 1976 P & H 238 (DB).
Where some land was said have been gifted by the residents of a village to the PWD some time in 1965-66 and the petitioner raised a structure over it. The respondents wanted to invoke the provisions of this Act for the purpose of evicting the alleged encroacher. It was found that there was no document showing the transfer of land in favour of the PWD. Any transfer of land even by gift is inconceivable in 1965-66. Then, also no mutation for the transfer of the land had been sanctioned, nor was there any proof for the transfer of land. Even if the petitioner was trespasser he was entitled to hold the premises against every body except the owner. The govt. not being the owner could not invoke the Act. Ram Narain V State of Punjab 1984 Rev. L.R. 344.