MANGAL RAM Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mangal Ram petitioner has occupied shop site 24-H in Bajwara Market, Chandigarh, on the border of Sectors 22 and 23 since 1952. It is alleged in the petition that he received a registered notice from the Estate Officer on September 13, 1975, to the effect that the lease of his shop No. 24-H has been cancelled and that he should vacate the premises within a month. On November 4, 1975, the Assistant Estate Officer went to the site and asked the petitioner to remove his goods within two hours. Thus, some of his goods were removed by the Estate Officer on the same day and the remaining on the next day. The petitioner then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6479 of 1975 which was dismissed by Harbans Lal, J. on 14th May, 1976. Letters Patent Appeal and special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the said order of the learned Single Judge were also dismissed. Another show-cause notice was issued to him on 28th May, 1976, in which the area was fully described. Copy of the notice is annexed with the petition as Annexure P.2. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice and also appeared before the Assistant Estate Officer. His objections were dismissed. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Punjab Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act') before the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide his order dated 27th October, 1976. Copy of the order is attached with the petition as Annexure P.4. It is against these orders of the Estate Officer (Annexure P.3) and the Additional District Judge (Annexure P.4) that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Written statement has been filed by the Estate Officer on behalf of the respondents and the allegations in the writ petition have been controverted. In para 2 of the return, the whole history of the development of Bajwara Market and allotment of shop-site to the petitioner and other like persons is given. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned order of the Additional District Judge is patently illegal as he is not the person authorised to decide the appeal. His argument is that under Section 9 of the Act, it is the District Judge who is a persona designata or a person notified to hear and dispose of the appeal. His second contention is that the respondents are not competent to recover the damages for illegal use and occupation from the petitioner from 1st November, 1953, as the Act came into force from 16th September, 1958.

(3.) In support of his contention on the first point, the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a Full Bench authority of this Court M/s. Pitman's Shorthand Academy, through its Principal, Mr. D.C. Rajput V. M/s. B. Lila Ram and Sons, etc.,1949 ILR(P&H) 606 and Nanak Chand V. The Estate Officer and others, 1969 71 PunLR 202. Mr. Anand Swaroop, learned counsel for the respondents, has, in reply relied upon Central Talkies Ltd., Kanpur V. Dwarka Prasad, 1961 AIR(SC) 606, Surindra Mohan V. Dharam Chand Abrol, 1971 AIR(J&K) 76, Badri Nath Gupta V. The Estate Officer (Controller of Aerodromes) Delhi Region,1977 AIR(J&K) 23, and The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum V. T.P. Kunhaliumma, 1977 AIR(SC) 282