P.N. Mookerjee, J.@mdashThis Rule raises a simple question. The relevant facts are not in dispute and they may be stated as follows:
The Petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the disputed property (Premises No. 15A, Ram Kumar Park, Tollygunge), applied, in 1951, before the Competent Authority under the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised Occupation of Land Act, 1951 (West Ben. XVI of 1951), u/s 3 of the said Act, for eviction of the opposite parties on the allegation that they were in unauthorised occupation of the said land. The said application was allowed by the Competent Authority on October 24, 1952, and an ex parte order for eviction was made against the opposite parties under the said Act.
2. Thereafter, on February 26, 1953, the opposite parties applied for review of the said order on the ground that no notice of the Petitioner''s application u/s 3 of the Act, mentioned above, had been served upon them. This application was rejected by the Competent Authority on July 11, 1953.
3. Thereafter the opposite parties applied on September 7, 1953, u/s 4 of the Act for protection under that section on the ground that they were displaced persons within the meaning of the Act and therein there was also a prayer for staying execution. By an order of the same date, this application of the opposite parties was rejected on the preliminary ground, inter alia, that the question whether the opposite parties were displaced persons within the meaning of the Act had already been decided against them by the order, dated October 24, 1952.
4. Against this order of the Competent Authority the opposite parties preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, as contemplated in Section 6 of the Act. The Tribunal has now set aside the rejection of the opposite parties'' application u/s 4 by the Competent Authority on the preliminary ground, as mentioned above, and has sent back the case for decision of the rights of the parties u/s 4 of the Act after recording a finding that the appeal from the order, dated September 7, 1953, was filed within time. Against this order of remand, the present Rule was obtained by the Petitioner.
5. The only question which is material for consideration and which has been seriously pressed and argued by Mr. Laik, who appears for the Petitioner, is whether, in their application u/s 4 the opposite parties were entitled to raise the question that they were displaced persons in the face of the order of eviction passed against them u/s 3 of the Act.
6. occupation of the disputed land on December 31, 1950, he would be entitled to claim protection u/s 4. On a perusal of Sections 3 and 4, it seems to me to be beyond dispute that the statute contemplates that, in connection with a claim for eviction, this question of status may properly be raised and determined at the Section 4 stage, that is, after the eviction order has been made u/s 3, and, to a party, proceeded against u/s 3 of the Act and against whom an order for eviction has been obtained under that section, it is perfectly open to apply for protection u/s 4 on the ground that he is a displaced person, as contemplated by that section, and when such a question is raised in an application u/s 4, the Competent Authority is bound to consider that question and decide it in accordance with law, no matter that an order for eviction has already been passed against that person u/s 3 of the Act. This, indeed, is implicit in Section 4 itself and its opening words put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.
7. That section (Section 4) runs as follows:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, no order under Sub-section (3) of that section shall be executed if the person in respect of whom the order has been made is a displaced person who on the 31st day of December, 1950, was in unauthorised occupation of any land, until the State Government provides for him in the prescribed manner:
(a) other land which in the opinion of the Competent Authority is situated in an area from where the displaced person would be able to carry on conveniently such occupation as he may have been engaged in for earning his livelihood at the time when the Competent Authority makes the order,
(b) and also a house on such other land, suitable for him in the opinion of the Competent Authority, if immediately before the Competent Authority makes the order he had a house on the land....
8. The language of the section (Section 4) clearly shows that the applicant under it is entitled to claim protection on the ground that he is a displaced person, as contemplated therein, in spite of the order of eviction u/s 3 and his claim of the said status will not be barred by reason of that order.
9. I hold, therefore, that neither of the two contentions, raised by Mr. Laik in support of this Rule, can be accepted.
10. Mr. Laik does not contend that the appeal before the Tribunal from the order, dated September 7, 1953, was time-barred and, accordingly, no grievance can be made against the decision of the Tribunal holding that the said appeal was perfectly in time. There is, however, one observation which it is necessary to make with regard to the order of the Tribunal, challenged in this Rule. Towards the concluding part of that order it is stated that "the order of eviction as made on October 24, 1952, cannot "stand". This obviously was a slip and what the Tribunal had in mind was the order of the Competent Authority, dated September 7, 1953, by which the opposite parties'' application u/s 4 and their prayer for stay of execution were rejected. The order for eviction u/s 3 cannot be set aside and if the opposite parties'' application u/s 4 succeeds on the ground that they are displaced persons and are as such entitled to claim protection under that section, the only effect will be that the said order of eviction will remain stayed until the alternative accommodation, contemplated by that section, is provided by the State Government. The obvious slip in the order of the Tribunal will, therefore, be rectified and that part of the order where it is said that "the order of eviction as made on October 24, 1952, "cannot stand" must be deleted. Subject to this the present Rule is discharged. The order of remand, made by the Tribunal, remitting the case back to the Competent Authority for consideration of the opposite parties'' application u/s 4 of the Act in accordance with law must be affirmed and the Competent Authority will now decide the said application and all relevant questions u/s 4 including the question of compensation, as mentioned in the last part of that section.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
