Supreme Court upholds Collector's order, dismisses suit over public premises eviction.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision regarding the order passed by the Collector, declaring it legal and valid under the Punjab Public Premises and Land Act. It emphasized that civil courts lack jurisdiction in matters concerning eviction from public premises and criticized the High Court for not upholding the Collector's classification of the property. The Court also found that the principle of res judicata applied, and the suit filed by respondent No. 1 was time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissing respondent No. 1's suit and granting them time to remove stored fuel from the premises.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order dated September 25, 1970, passed by the Collector, Hissar.
2. Jurisdiction of the civil court in light of Section 15 of the 1972 Act.
3. Ownership and classification of the disputed property as public premises.
4. Applicability of the principle of res judicata.
5. Bar of limitation on the suit filed by respondent No. 1.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Order Dated September 25, 1970:
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana declared the order dated September 25, 1970, passed by the Collector, Hissar, under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Land Recovery) Act, 1959, as illegal and void. It restrained the State of Haryana from dispossessing respondent No. 1 based on that order. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court was not justified in questioning the Collector's determination that the premises were public premises under the 1972 Act.

2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 15 of the 1972 Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters related to the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. The High Court erred by not considering this bar and by entertaining the suit filed by respondent No. 1, which challenged the Collector's order.

3. Ownership and Classification of the Disputed Property:
The High Court held that there was insufficient evidence to classify the disputed property as public premises belonging to the State. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Collector and the Commissioner had both found the property to be public premises belonging to the State Government. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for reversing these concurrent findings based on an earlier written statement by the Municipal Committee, which was not upheld in court.

4. Applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata:
The High Court ruled that the principle of res judicata did not apply as there was no prior decision that the disputed property was public premises under the 1959 Act. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court's judgment failed to consider the finality of the Collector's order, which had been affirmed by the Commissioner and was not successfully challenged in subsequent legal proceedings.

5. Bar of Limitation:
The High Court held that the bar of limitation could not be invoked because the Collector's order was void. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Collector's determination of the property as public premises was within his jurisdiction and not a nullity. Therefore, the suit filed by respondent No. 1 was barred by Section 15 of the 1972 Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and decree. It restored the judgments of the lower courts, which had dismissed the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court also provided respondent No. 1 with the opportunity to remove stored petrol and diesel oil from the disputed premises within four weeks, with necessary facilities to be provided by the appellants and respondent No. 2.

---