Eviction Proceedings no bar to Demolition of Unauthorised Construction: Punjab-Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that the pendency of eviction proceedings under public premises law does not strip municipal authorities of their power of demolition of unauthorised structures. A bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Rupinderjit Chahal ruled that regulatory actions against illegal construction operate in a distinct legal field from occupancy disputes, preventing litigants from using pending title litigations as a shield against municipal enforcement.

In a set of Letters Patent Appeals challenging the dismissal of writ petitions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the intersection between the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 and the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The appellants sought to stall demolition orders on the grounds that their status as 'unauthorised occupants' was still being adjudicated following a remand in CWP No. 18641 of 1995.

Key Takeaways

Jurisdictional Independence

Statutory powers to regulate construction under municipal laws remain independent of proceedings determining the legality of an occupant's possession under public premises acts.

Tenant's Construction Rights

A Gair Marusi (non-occupancy) tenant cannot alter the nature of land or raise permanent structures without explicit owner consent or statutory backing, regardless of the duration of possession.

Evidentiary Value of Revenue Records

In the absence of sanctioned plans or municipal records, the lack of entries for structures in contemporaneous revenue records like the Jamabandi serves as valid evidence of unauthorised construction.

Apportionment vs. Validation

Recognition of tenancy rights for the purpose of sharing compensation in land acquisition proceedings does not validate illegal structures or confer proprietary rights for municipal purposes.

Municipal Authority and Independent Statutory Fields

The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the argument that the Municipal Corporation was precluded from acting during the pendency of eviction cases. The Bench observed that the subject matter and statutory foundation of the two proceedings are fundamentally different. It further added to clarify that "The proceedings under the Public Premises Act and those under Section 408-A of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act operate in distinct and independent fields. The former are concerned with determination of the status of the occupant and the legality of his occupation of public premises, whereas the latter empowers the Municipal Corporation to regulate and take action in respect of unauthorised construction."

Status of Gair Marusi Tenants

Addressing the appellants' claim of long-standing tenancy, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that even a settled possession does not permit the violation of construction norms. The Bench noted: “A Gair Marusi tenant is admittedly not the owner of the property. Throughout the proceedings, the appellants have failed to point out any statutory provision, rule or binding precedent conferring upon a non-occupancy tenant an unrestricted right to raise permanent construction upon the land in his possession.”

Ratio

The pendency of eviction proceedings under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 does not constitute a legal embargo on the exercise of statutory powers under Section 408-A of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. Furthermore, the status of a non-occupancy tenant (Gair Marusi) does not inherently confer a right to raise permanent structures without owner consent or statutory authorization.

Background

The dispute involved land in Village Sihi, Faridabad, where the appellants claimed rights as Gair Marusi tenants since 1943. While the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 proceedings were pending following a remand by the High Court in 1997, the Municipal Corporation issued demolition orders in 2017 under Section 408-A of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The appellants argued that the structures were ancestral, but the revenue records for 2008-09 showed no such residential entries. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petitions, suggesting the appellants file a suit under Section 13-A of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 if they claimed title, a view the Division Bench upheld while affirming the demolition.

Case Details:
Case No.: LPA-2065-2026(O&M) & LPA-2066-2026(O&M)
Case Title: Karan Singh v. State of Haryana & Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana; Mr. Vivek Saini, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 21574

Eviction Proceedings no bar to Demolition of Unauthorised Construction: Punjab & Haryana HC