UNION OF INIDA Vs. PUNJAB COAL COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made by the petitioner to the judgment dated 6.9.2002 passed by Additional district Judge, Shimla in CMA No. 23- S/14/1995. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-company was issued a licence for the purpose of stacking coal etc. which was carried from Kalka to Shimla by rail. The licence issued in favour of the respondent was revoked vide letter No.1146-C4/CP/SML/230/Pt-III dated February, 1986. The petitioner had filed an application before the Estate Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantonment seeking eviction of the respondent as well as for the payment of damages. The Estate Officer vide order dated 18th March, 1992 had closed the proceedings under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity sake) on the basis of the statement of Sh. Parmod Sood. The Estate Officer had further directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 26979/- to the petitioner towards damages. The petitioner was directed by the Estate Officer to execute a fresh agreement which was to be renewed after every three years.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 18th March, 1992, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Shimla. The appeal was barred by limitation and application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. The petitioner had filed CMPM(O) No. 17 of 2000 assailing the order of the learned Additional District Judge. The CMPM(O) No. 17 of 2000 was disposed of by this Court on 27/28 November, 2001. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal within six months. The Additional District Judge had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act on 6th September, 2002.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts which can be culled out from the pleading of the parties are that the licence was issued in favour of the respondent for stacking coal etc. The licence was revoked vide letter dated February, 1986. The Estate Officer merely on the basis of the statement made by Sh. Parmod Sood had closed the proceedings under section 4 of the Act. The Estate Officer had consequently directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 26979/-. The Estate Officer had directed the petitioner to execute a fresh agreement with the respondent and renew it after every three years. The order passed by the Estate Officer dated 18th March, 1992 was without jurisdiction. The Estate Officer had assumed the role of owner/licencor while passing order dated 18th March, 1992. He was simply required to adjudicate upon the lis between the parties instead of embarking in the area which was prohibited under the law. The Estate Officer was required to hold whether the respondent was in unauthorized occupation and was liable to pay damages as well or not. This Court while allowing the CMPM(O) No. 17/2000 had made the following observations against the manner in which the Estate Officer had exercised his jurisdiction ( Union of India v. Punjab Coal Company AIR 2002 HP 50):