Plea in HC alleges ex-MLA’s continued occupation of Sector 5 govt house despite cancellation order

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today fixed April 27 for hearing a petition alleging that a former MLA has continued to occupy a government residence in Chandigarh for more than five years after cancellation of the allotment and repeated directions to vacate the premises. Referring to House No. 3/33 in Sector 5, the plea stated that the residence was allotted to Tej Parkash Singh — son of Punjab’s former chief minister Beant Singh — through an allotment letter dated November 25, 2010.

The application, filed in a pending suo motu public interest litigation relating to government houses, was placed before the bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu. It sought impleadment of journalist Kulwant Singh as an intervener and former MLA Tej Parkash Singh as a respondent in the case.

The bench was told that the applicant had earlier filed a separate public interest litigation. When the matter came up before the division bench on January 20, the court observed that the issue formed part of the broader questions pending consideration in the present suo motu PIL and granted liberty to the applicant to raise the issue in these proceedings.

In the application now filed in the pending PIL, the applicant stated that he was a journalist and a public-spirited citizen and had approached the court “solely to enforce the Rule of Law and Constitutional principles regarding the allocation of scarce public resources, namely government residences, which are being misappropriated by influential political figures”.

The application added that House Allotment Committee cancelled the allotment through an order dated May 20, 2020, following the mandate of the Supreme Court in “Lok Prahari v State of Uttar Pradesh and others” (2018) holding that former functionaries could not retain government bungalows after demitting office.

According to the plea, the cancellation order was never challenged and had attained finality. The application further stated that despite the lapse of more than five years since cancellation, the former MLA continued to reside in the premises. It added that communications dated March 26, 2025, and September 25, 2025, had been issued calling upon the occupant to vacate the house, but “no effective steps under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 have been taken”.

Referring to media reports, the plea also stated that an attempt by the Estate Office to enforce eviction on February 8, 2023, was unsuccessful. “As per media reports, a half-hearted attempt by the Estate Office to enforce eviction was thwarted by the security personnel of the respondent and the Administration retreated without enforcing the writ of the State,” he added

The application contended that permitting a former legislator to retain a government bungalow while serving officials awaited accommodation created “an impermissible, politically privileged class”. It further asserted that the authorities were duty-bound under provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to evict unauthorised occupants and recover penal rent.