UNION OF INDIA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A prayer is made through this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated November 9, 1977 passed by the learned District Judge, Amritsar, allowing in part an appeal filed by respondent No. 2 in exercise of the powers under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (for short the 'Act').

(2.) The facts in brief are that a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act was served on respondent No. 2 on 27.7.1974 by the Military Estate Officer, Jalandhar Circle, Jalandhar Cantt. calling upon him to show cause why an order requiring him to pay damages amounting to Rs. 34,320/- be not made. The notice was issued with regard to an area of 64-87 acares of land in the Camping ground at Gharinda, District Amritsar, which was said to be in the unauthorised occupation of respondent No. 2. The damages so claimed were for the period from 1.6.1970 to 31-5-1974 at the rate of Rs 8580/- per annum. After receiving objections of respondent No.2 and evidence led by the parties, the Estate Officer passed an order dated September 30, 1976 directing respondent No.2 to pay the said sum of Rs. 34, 320/- which was assessed as damages in three equal monthly instalments of Rs. 14,440/- commencing from October 30, 1976. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Amritsar under Section 9 of the Act and the impugned order Annexure P.1 was passed in the said appeal. The learned District Judge held that respondent No.2 is liable for damages for a period of three years only prior to prior to 27.7.1974 when the proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act were initiated against him and the damages assessed prior to the aforesaid period of three years were beyond limitation and were, therefore, not recoverable.

(3.) Respondent No.2 opposed the writ petition and fied his written statement. He has supported the order Annexure P.1 passed by the learned District Judge. Besides, he has raised preliminary objections to the effect that the Estate Officer, Jalandhar Cantt, had no jurisdiction to issue him the notice under Section 7(2) of the Act and to assess the damages as he was not vested with the power to do so.