MOVVAR SUBRAMANYA BHAT Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the constitutional validity of the provisions of S.94(3) of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as Revenue Act), has been challenged on the ground that it is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution in that it confers unguided discretion on the authority competent to act thereunder to pick and choose one of the two proceedures to evict unauthorised occupants from public premises, available under the Revenue Act and the Mysore Public Premises (Eviction of unauthoried occupants) Act, 1961. (hereinafter referred to as Pub. Premises Act). An incidental question has also been raised that the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, (MRAT) which is also impugned herein, suffers from vagueness and therefore, incapable of implementation. It must therefore, be set aside or quashed.

(2.) The material facts are few and as follows: The land bearing S.No.142 3B of Guthigar village has been classed as 'poramboke kola'(i.e. a tank). The petitioner is alleged to have encroached upon an extent of 5 (five) cents therein. On being served with a notice by the concerned revenue authorities to show ca,use against eviction from such encroached portion, he is alleged to have made a statement that the boundary between his land and the said tank being uncertain, until the same had been duly fixed, he would not be liable for any action to be taken against him as an unauthorised occupant. Hence proceedings for eviction were initiated under S.94 of the Revenue Act. Although served with a notice of an enquiry under the said provision, the petitioner did not appear before the revenue authority holding the same. Consequently, by two orders made on 28-5-69, the authority levied penal assessment and penalty and directed eviction of the petitioner from the portion unauthorisedly occupied by him, pursuant to S.94 of the Revenue Act. Against the order, the petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the MRAT in accordance with S.49 of the said Act. Hence this petition.

(3.) The principal contention, as outlined already, urged on behalf of the petitioner may be set out thus: There are two alternative procedures open to the Government to be followed in cases of eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises such as the present petitioner and in the absence of any guidance as to the exercise of discretion by the authority competent to act as to which of such procedures shall be followed in a given case, the provision would be patently discriminatory and particularly so when one of such procedures is more onerous than the other. In other words, there is no valid classification of persons for the purpose of proceeding against them under one or the other of such procedures. The specific argument is that the provisions of the Pub. Premises Act could also be resorted to evict the petitioner and such provisions were less onerous than those provided under S.94 of the Revenue Act. They would be so because in the former Act, there are provisions for determination of damages and preferring of appeals to a District Judge, whereas the provisions of S.94 of the Revenue Act, under challenge herein, have provided for penalties and for an appeal under S.49 of that Act only to a Special Tribunal constituted under that Act. In support of such a submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1581.