The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in LPA No. 596 of 2016 (Bhajan Singh and others v. State of Punjab) and 15 connected LPAs, decided on 28.11.2025, dismissed all 16 appeals filed by truck and bus body builders who had been occupying land on the GT Road, Patiala-Sirhind stretch. The land had been acquired in 1980 under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of establishing a grain market at Sirhind, and the occupants were never allotted the land.
Background
The land in question was acquired by the State in 1980 under the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a grain market at Sirhind. The appellants, who carried on the business of building truck and bus bodies, had been occupying the land along the GT Road between Patiala and Sirhind. The Supreme Court had, at one stage, directed that 9 acres be allotted to the appellants at the market rate, which was assessed at Rs.4.28 crores in April 1998. However, the appellants did not deposit the requisite amount despite repeated opportunities extended to them over several years until 2007. In the meantime, the market value of the land escalated significantly. By the time the present proceedings were taken up, the current market value had risen to approximately Rs.103 crores.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court examined whether the appellants had any right to continue in possession of the land. The appellants were not owners of the land; the land stood acquired by the State. The Supreme Court’s earlier direction to allot 9 acres was conditional upon the appellants depositing the assessed price, which they failed to do within the prescribed period. Having failed to avail of the opportunity, the appellants could not claim any subsisting right to the land. The eviction proceedings initiated under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 were, therefore, in order.
Key Principles
The judgment reaffirms that where land has been acquired by the State for a public purpose, persons in unauthorised occupation cannot claim a right to continued possession merely on account of prolonged occupation. A conditional direction to allot land lapses when the condition, namely the deposit of the assessed price, is not fulfilled within the prescribed time. The 1973 Act provides a valid mechanism for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises.
Significance
The decision is notable for the significant gap between the 1998 valuation (Rs.4.28 crores) and the current market value (approximately Rs.103 crores), illustrating the consequences of failing to comply with a conditional court order within the prescribed timeframe. The appellants’ inability to afford the current market price underscored why the earlier opportunity, once lost, could not be revived.
The Order
All 16 Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed. The eviction orders under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 were upheld.
Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate, appeared for Respondent No. 5, i.e., the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board.