HAREKRISHNA SETHI Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the orders passed by the Estate Officer, Rourkela and the appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.

(2.) The sole submission made before this Court challenging the orders is that the petitioner was not aware of any notice under Section 4 of the Act indicating the premises in respect of which the proceeding has been initiated by the Estate Officer and the grounds for eviction. As is evident from the order of the Estate Officer as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner had entered appearance before the Estate Officer and contested the proceeding and therefore now he cannot take a stand that he was not aware of the premises in respect of which the proceeding was initiated or the grounds on which the order of eviction was sought to be passed. The following decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Wire-netting Stores and Anr. v. The Delhi Development Authority and Ors. reported in, 1969 3 SCC 415; Sheik Khaliur Reheman v. Estate Officer; Bhubaneswar and Ors., 1977 AIR(Ori) 201; Smt. Kamal Ray v. Bhagabat Singh, 1977 AIR(Ori) 206; Dr. Yash Paul Gupta v. Dr. S.S. Anand and Ors., 1980 AIR(J&K) 16; Hamsavalli and etc. v. Tahasildar; Vridhachalam South Arcot District, 1990 AIR(Mad) 350; Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao and Ors., 1965 AIR(SC) 1405; Kylasa Sarabhaiah v. The Commissioner of Income tax, Hyderabad, 1965 AIR(SC) 1411; Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, 1968 AIR(SC) 933; Laxmipat Choraria and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 1968 AIR(SC) 938; Manmohan Das v. Madhunagar Powerloom Weavers Cooperative Society and Ors.,1975 41 CLT 697; Ramachandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. v. Govind Joti Chavare and Ors., 1975 AIR(SC) 915; Phiray Ram v. National Airport Authority AIRport Ahmedabad and Anr., 1998 AIHC 329; K. Ibrahim Kutty v. K. Ramachandran and Ors., 1998 AIHC 332; Pamadhar Tea Company (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2004 AIHC 3054; Amulya Chandra Sutradhar and Anr. v. Estate Officer, AIR 1964 Tri; Promode Ranjan Sen Gupta v. Swadesh Chandra Deb, AIR 1964 Tri 13; P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, 1998 AIR(SC) 2979 and Brij Bhushan v. Kewal Kumar, 1998 AIR(SC) 2983 have no application considering the fact involved in this case. The petitioner having participated in the proceeding and being aware of the premises in respect of which the proceeding had been initiated and the grounds therefore, we find no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The writ application is accordingly dismissed.