BHISHAM DEV Vs. ESTATE OFFICER IV DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) With the consent of parties, these matters are taken up for final disposal. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 submits that no counter-affidavit would be necessary in this matter because purely legal questions arise for consideration of this Court. In this view of the matter, he has submitted written synopsis which is taken on record. These 9 writ petitions arise from a common order passed by the learned ADJ on 02.08.2003 in 9 separate appeals under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Common questions arise in these petitions. Therefore, the same are being disposed of together.

(3.) The brief facts are that the Estate Officer in all of these petitions issued Section 4 notices under the said Act requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted on account of their being alleged unauthorised occupants. The petitioners replied to the said show cause notices and appeared before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer by separate orders all dated 23.05.2003 on identical terms decided that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants and that they should be evicted. The question before this Court is of a very narrow scope. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the time of hearing before the Estate Officer, the question arose as to who should lead evidence first. It was the petitioners' contention that the respondent/DDA should lead evidence first, whereas it was the contention of the counsel on behalf of the DDA that it is the petitioners who should lead evidence first. This aspect is made clear by the factual position recorded in paragraph 3 of the Estate Officer's order which is more or less identical in all the matters and reads as under:-