Punjab admits to no eviction proceedings against Bhattal
- Manmohan Singh a 'person of integrity, probity', says Sonia
- Now, a sting in Kejriwal’s tale: Colleague taped him saying let’s break Cong
- Dimapur mob lynching: Police say it's rape, Naga govt says could be consensual sex
- Aamir Khan: I apologise if 'PK' has hurt sentiments
- The AAP exchange, letter for letter
illegal occupation: UT apprises high court of 10 officers who have not paid their penal rent
The Punjab government Tuesday admitted in Punjab and Haryana High Court that it has so far not started any eviction proceedings under Public Premises Act against former Congress leader of Opposition Rajinder Kaur Bhattal for illegally occupying house number 46 in Sector 2.
Moreover, the UT Administration also apprised the high court that 10 officers of the Punjab and Haryana have not paid their penal rent that come out to be Rs 20.99 lakh.
During the resumed hearing, the HC directed Punjab to file a comprehensive affidavit mentioning action against Bhattal and the expenditure incurred on renovation and repair of the house that was allotted to Punjab Director General of Police (DGP), P S Gill and under which head the expenses were made and status of government houses in the state.
Directions came from Justice Rajesh Bindal while hearing the case pertaining to illegal occupation of government houses in the UT Administration. Rejecting the affidavits filed by Special Secretary and Under Secretary Department of General Administration Punjab Bhawna Garg and Ramesh Kumar, the high court directed the state to file one consolidate affidavit.
However, intervener in the case, lawyer Surinderpal Tinna submitted that the government is misleading the court as it failed to take any action against Bhattal and her penal rent has increased to Rs 80 lakh from Rs 66.94 lakh.
The counsel for Punjab informed the court that Bhattal has moved an application before the state to re-allocate her as she is facing security threats and her old mother is staying with her. Perturbed over the argument, Justice Bindal orally observed that if state starts considering such grounds for allotment of houses then the state would be getting many applications of same nature.