BHAGRI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are that land measuring 26. 46 acres comprising old M. E. S. Brick field falling under the control and ad ministration of Ministry of Defence of the Central Government was put to public auc tion by the Tahsildar, Agra, for cultivation in the year 1946-47. The bid of Rs. 500 offered by petitioner No. 1 Bhagri Singh being highest was accepted and the land was thus let out for cultivation under the Grow More Food Scheme enunciated by the Govern ment. The permission granted to Bhagri Singh expired on 31. 5. 1947. No extension thereafter was obtained. An offer was also made by M. E. O. Agra to get the occupation regularised but this offer was not accepted by petitioners. Thereafter by letter No. 4/325/147, dated 31. 5. 1960, petitioners were asked to hand over vacant possession of the land in dispute as they were no longer tenants and their possession was un authorised. As the possession was not given, proceedings for eviction were initiated by serving a notice under Section 4 (1) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Oc cupants) Act, 1958. This notice was given to Bhagri Singh and Malkhan Singh. Malkhan Singh is now represented by petitioner Nos. 4 and 5. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, namely Karan Singh and Sardar Singh are other brothers of Bhagri Singh. They were impleaded in the proceedings on their own application. Against this notice objections were filed inter alia alleging that they were not unauthorised occupants of the land be cause initially the land was let out to them by the Collector for which no period was fixed. The petitioners and their two brothers Karan Singh and Sardar Singh are in joint possession of the land in question; that they have invested more than Rs. 20,000 in levelling the land and making it cultivable and also in repairing the old wells etc. It is also alleged that the applicants and their brothers have constructed four katcha houses which were necessary for cultivation and management of the land. It is also al leged that they are in possession for the last more than 16 years and all of them are also recorded as tenants in the revenue records of the Government and they have acquired tenancy rights. It was also said that the land in dispute is situate beyond the limits of Agra Cantonment and the Military area and lies in several Mohals. Plot No. 317/1 measuring 4-2-0 has been purchased by them from the Custodian as evacuee property and the sale certificate has been executed in their favour and they are the tenants of the same.

(2.) THE prescribed authority on the basis of the objection filed by the petitioners truck as many as 7 issues and all the issues were decided against the petitioners by order, dated 16-1-1964. It was concluded that the petitioners are in unauthorised oc cupation of the Government land and they were ordered to be evicted. Petitioners then filed appeal. Appeal was dismissed on 5-9-1964. Orders of the prescribed authority and the appellate authority were challenged in writ petition No. 1214 of 1964 in this Court. THE writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 18. 3. 1971 on a short ground that the provisions of Act No. 32 1958 are ultra vires being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Spe cial Appeal No. 396 of 1971 was filed by respondent No. 1 which was also dismissed on 9. 9. 1971. THEreafter an application was filed in this Court claiming a certificate under Article 134-A read with Article 133 (l) (a) (b) of the Constitution. This applica tion was registered Misc. Case No. 715 of 1971. In the meantime Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act No. 40 of 1971) was enacted and Act No. 32 of 1958 was repealed. THE New Act was enforced with retrospective effect from the date 16. 9. 1958 and Section 20 of the New Act validated the actions taken under the repealed Act. In the New Act the legal infirmity found in the Act of 1958 was removed by providing in Section 15 of the Act that no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of eviction of any person in unauthorised occupation of public premises or recovery of the arrears of rent payable under Section 7 (1) or damages payable under Section 7 (2) of the Act. Section 20 of the New Act is very relevant for the purpose of the present case, hence it is being reproduced below: "20. Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, anything done or any action taken (including rules or orders made, notices issued, evictions ordered or effected, damages assessed, rents or damages or costs recovered and proceedings initiated) or purported to have been done or taken under the Public Premises (Evic tion of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (32 of 1958) (sic) hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act) shall be deemed to be as valid and effective as if such things or action was done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act which, under sub-section (1) of Section 1 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 16th day of Sep tember, 1958, and accordingly- (a) no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court for the refund of any rent or damages or costs recovered under the 1958 Act where such refund has been claimed merely on the ground that the said Act has been declared to be constitutional and void: (b) no court shall enforce a decree or order directing the refund of any rent or damages or costs recovered under the 1958 Act merely on the ground that the said Act has been declared to be unconstitutional and void. "

(3.) FIRSTLY, that the petitioners have not been given any notice before passing the order of eviction under the Act of 1971. Thus the order of eviction is bad in law and cannot be sustained.