HC orders action for delay in enforcing eviction orders

Expressing strong disapproval of the prolonged delay in implementing “binding” eviction orders passed over a decade ago against occupants at Ellenabad, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed disciplinary proceedings against officials responsible. The Bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Vikas Suri also made it clear that judicial verdicts were required to be executed promptly to uphold the rule of law and prevent erosion of public trust in the legal system.

The Bench observed that the appellants, petty shopkeepers occupying kiosks on public land since 1978, were ordered to vacate the premises under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. Their initial writ petition against the eviction was dismissed by the high court in 2011, with the Single Bench asserting that the appellants had no legal claim to the land. The Bench also noted that the municipal committee had indicated plans to construct shops on the site and suggested that the appellants could apply for allotment upon construction.

Subsequent appeals were dismissed in 2012, with the Division Bench affirming the eviction order. The court, at the same time, recommended “sympathetic view” for the appellants’’ rehabilitation, while recognising their long-standing presence and livelihood dependence on the kiosks.

The Bench noted with concern that the eviction orders attained finality in 2012, but were not executed. “Enigmatically, since 2012 till now, the binding and conclusive verdict of eviction made in the LPAs rather remained unexecuted. Consequently, the prolonged delay in the complete execution being made of the verdict leads this court to make the derelicting officer/official concerned amenable for proper disciplinary proceedings being drawn against him/her/them. The said proceedings are to be promptly drawn and taken to their logical conclusion,” the Bench asserted.

The court made it clear that its earlier recommendation to consider the appellants for alternative sites was not a directive loaded with mandatory overtones. Any such rehabilitation was contingent upon existing rules, regulations, or policies.

The Bench took note of the fact that the appellants had invoked a 2021 policy for regularising occupants of public land.