JAGDISH SARAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, dated 13-10-1976 was served on the present petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made against the petitioner in respect of the property in dispute in the present matter. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed his reply and mainly contended that the land in dispute is not public premises within the meaning of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) BY order, dated 2nd March, 1977, the Estate Officer directed the eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed on 8-4-1978. The matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer again, vide his order, dated 11-12- 1979 directed eviction of the petitioner. This order was again set aside in appeal by order, dated 21-10-1983 and the matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer for deciding it again, after affording an opportunity to the parties concerned for adducing evidence In the third round, the Estate Officer again directed eviction of the petitioner, vide order, dated 20-2-1985. This order has been affirmed in appeal vide order, dated 11-2-1986 In the present writ petition, both the aforesaid orders, namely, the order of the Estate Officer, dated 20-2-1985 and the order of the III Addl District Judge, Bareilly, dated 11-11-1986 dismissing the petitioners appeal are under challenge.

(3.) THE necessary facts for the decision of the case are that the petitioner was granted the lease of the disputed land comprising of plots no. 160 to 167 and 179, situate in village Fatehganj East, pergana Faridpur, district Bareilly for a period of five years with effect from 1-6-1966, THE petitioner did not vacate the plot in dispute after the expiry of the period of lease. THEreafter a notice under section 4 (1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. As stated earlier, twice the Estate Officer directed eviction of the petitioner and twice the petitioners appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer for re-decision. However, the petitioner was evicted in pursuance of the order of the Estate Officer, dated 11-12-1979. THE petitioner sought restitution of possession on the ground that his appeal has been allowed but the said restitution application was rejected. THE admitted position is that the petitioner is out of possession over the land in dispute.