JINDA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has come up on account of the reference made by the learned Single Judge (Hon. S. P. Khare, J.) for decision by a larger Bench because of the conflicting decisions of the Single Bench of this Court. The question of law formulated by the learned Single Judge for answer by this Court reads as under : "whether a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code lies against the order of the appellate officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971?

(2.) THE Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the 'act of 1971') was enacted for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises. The 'public premises' has been defined in Section 2 (e) which reads as under :

(3.) IN the scheme of the Act of 1971, question has to be decided whether after the order is passed by the Estate Officer, appeal lies to District Judge and after disposal of appeal, whether any further remedy of revision under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is available or a writ under Article 226/227 Constitution of India is the only remedy. This question first came up before this Court whether a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code lies or not; and in that connection, in the case of Hargovind Sharma v. South Eastern Railway and Anr. , 1965 MPLJ 415 = AIR 1966 MP 7, it was held by learned single Judge that no revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code lies before the High Court. Subsequently, in another decision of this Court in the case of Ayodhya Prasad v. Union of India and Anr. , 1983 MPLJ 18 = AIR 1983 MP 39, learned Single Judge Hon. C. P. Sen, J. (as he then was) held that a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code is maintainable as the Court of District Judge is a Court subordinate to the High Court. These two conflicting judgments came up before Justice S. C. Pandey in Civil Revision No. 1557 of 1996, Arjunlal Agrawal v. Union of India and the learned single Judge, after elaborately dealing with the matter on the subject, concluded that no revision lies against the order of the District Judge. Therefore, Justice S. P. Khare has referred the matter to a larger Bench for authoritative decision in the matter.