JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM the averments made in the petition, it appears that one Lachhoo Prasad and Chainlal held about 3 acres of land, comprised in Plot No. 94, Gora Bazar, Cantonment, Jabalpur, They continued in its occupation till their death. Lachhoo Prasad and Chainlal are both dead. Lachhoo Prasad died on 6-11-1979, while Chainlal died in 1969. On their death, their heirs, including Gulab Chand and Shivnath came in occupation. Gulab Chand is also dead and his sons are said to be in occupation. The petitioners, who are the heirs of the original holders, Lachhoo Prasad and Chainlal, allege that their ancestors were in occuption as owners of this land much before the British rule in India. However, on a misapprehension, lease deeds were executed by the Cantonment Board in respect of this land, the last being the lease deed dated 7-6-1969, executed in favour of Lachhoo Ram alias Lachhoo Prasad, Gulabchand and Shivnath. This lease expired in 1975, whereafter it was never renewed although the petitioners were ever willing to get the lease renewed. The petitioners allege that the lease aforesaid is renewable and heritable. Although no formal lease deed was executed, rent was being accepted by the Estate Officer upto the year 1981. One of such receipts, evidencing payment of the alleged amount of rent is Annexure P-3. No amount on account of occupation was thereafter accepted by the Estate Officer, although tendered.

(2.) ON 25-11-1981, the Military Estate Officer, M. P. Circle, Cantt. Jabalpur, served a notice upon Lachhoo Prasad, Gulabchand and Shivnath, demanding a sum of Rs. 774. 40 as damages for occupation of that land and also required them to furnish certain affidavits. An opportunity was given to the noticees to comply with that demand by 9-12-1981, failing which, it was made clear that eviction proceedings shall be taken against them under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and they shall further be liable to pay damages. On 9-12-1981, vide Annexure P-3, a sum of Rs. 774. 40 was paid by the petitioners and was accepted as damages for occupation from 1-6-1979 to 31-10-1981. It appears from Annuxure P-5 that the occupants raised certain unauthorised structure on the land in question and also permitted some unauthorised persons to reside therein. This was held to be contrary to the terms of the lease. They were, therefore, asked to vacate the premises within 15 days of that notice, which is dated 10-10-1985. The petitioners filed a reply to that notice which is Annexure P-4 and alleged that they have paid all the amount due from them, vide receipt, Annexure P-6, dated 31-10-1985, and requested for withdrawal of the notice. It is significant that even in this reply, it was not denied that structures were raised on the land and that unauthorised persons were allowed to occupy those structures. At the same time, it also appears that the petitioners filed an appeal under section 9 of the Act, before the District Judge, Jabalpur, against that order of eviction (Annexure P-5 ). That appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 26-8-1986 (Annexure P-7 ). By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order of their eviction, Annexure P-5, dated 10-10-1985 and the appellate order.

(3.) BEFORE the learned District Judge, the only question agitated was that no opportunity was given to the petitioners and no enquiry was held before the order of eviction was passed. The District Judge, for reasons recorded in para 4 of his order, appears to be right in negativing that contention. It appears from that order that notice under section 4 (1) of the Act was served on the holders and the petitioner No. 1, Jagdish Prasad, appeared. He did not submit any reply. He also informed that Lachhoo Prasad and Gulabchand were dead. He, however, applied for time to file a reply. Time was granted. On 28-11-1984, Lachhoo Prasad's son Gangaram appeared for all the heirs of Lachhoo Prasad and made oral submissions, which were reduced by the Estate Officer into writing. Affidavits were filed on 18-12-1984, whereafter a detailed order was passed on 1-10-1985 and then pursuant to that order, notice dated 10-10-1985 was issued. The narration of the facts in this order of the District Judge is sufficient to negative the petitioners' contention, which was reiterated before this Court as well, that due opportunity was not given to the petitioners to represent their case. The petitioners, therefore, cannot he heard to make any complaint and challenge their eviction from the land in question on that count.