S.P. Goel, J. (Oral)
1. This judgment will dispose of two Civil Revision Nos. 732 of 1983 and 1829 of 1983. The former is directed against the order of appointment of Local Commissioner to demarcate Khasra Nos. 17 and 18 to find out if the property in dispute is situate in either of the said Khasra number. The other is directed against the order refusing to grant ad interim injunction restraining the Union of India from demolishing the shops in dispute.
2. The principal argument advanced on behalf of the Union of India is that the suit to challenge the order of eviction passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) is barred by virtue of the provisions of section 15 of the Act which provides that no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises etc. The scope of inquiry under the 1958 Act was laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the following terms :
"Section 4 provides for the issue of a show cause notice, which gives the person affected a right to appear and state his case before the estate officer who has been substituted for the "competent officer". Further provision of the Act make it clear that, if necessary, a full dress inquiry is contemplated. Moreover, the right of appeal conferred by the new Act is much more comprehensive and satisfactory than that in the old Act repealed by it, as being ultra vires. Section 9 deals with appeals and Section 9(4) clearly envisages a regular hearing of an appeal by an experienced judicial officer. It is thus clear that even if a question of disputed title arises out of the issue of a notice under Section 4 by an estate officer, the affected person has every opportunity to present his case and the dispute can be properly adjudicated on, before any final action is taken under Section 5 of the Act."
From the said observations which are binding on me, it is evident that the inquiry by the estate officer under the Act is quite elaborate and he is competent to record a finding on a question of title. Once it is held that the estate officer is competent to decide the question of title between the parties, his findings shall become final if affirmed on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge and a suit to challenge them does not appear to be prima facie competent. There being thus no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff Civil Revision No. 732 of 1983 is allowed and the order appointing the Local Commissioner is set aside. The other Civil Revision No. 1829 of 1983 is dismissed and the order declining the prayer to grant ad interim injunction is affirmed. However, nothing said in this judgment would debar the trial Court from deciding the issue between the parties if the suit against the order passed under the said Act on the question of title is competent in the Civil Court or not.
No costs.
