MANGAT RAM Vs. REVENUE MINISTER, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arised in the following /circumstances : - Quarter No. 190 was originally allotted to one Mst. Nanki. Mst, Nanki died. On her death respondent No. 3 claimed that he was the sole heir of Mst. Nanki and was thus entitled to inherit the allotteeâ„¢s right in respect of the said quarter. The petitioner, Mangat Ram, on the other hand claimed an allotment in respect of this quarter on the ground that he was a displaced person from Pak held area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. An allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioner as early as 26 -4 -1961 in respect of this quarter. With a view to implement this order of allotment passed in favour of the petitioner, the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu, passed an order dated 3 -5 -1961 directing that the possession of the quarter aforesaid may be handed over to the petitioner. This order was resisted by respondent No. 3, Ganga Ram, by means of a suit filed in the Civil Court. The suit was ultimately dismissed on 31 -3 -1964. An appeal was thereafter brought to the District Judge. Jammu, who by his judgment dated 9 -5 -1961 reversed the decree passed by the trial court. A second appeal was brought to this Court. This Court vide its judgment dated 12 -8 -1966 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and the decree of the District Judge and restored those of the trial court A Letters Patent appeal was also thereafter dismissed by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 27 -12 -1966. On the conclusion of these proceedings the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer issued an order dated 18 -5 -1967 to the Estates Officer that the ejectment proceedings under section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act may be initiated against respondent No. 3 and the possession of the quarter may be handed over to the petitioner after evicting the respondent No. 3. Thus the eviction proceedings against respondent No. 3 came to be initiated. The Estates Officer after holding an enquiry under the aforesaid Act passed an order dated 14 -8 -1967 under section 5 of the Act evicting respondent No. 3 from the quarter in question. Against this order an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Jammu, who dismissed the appeal vide his judgment dated 7 -12 -1967. A writ petition against the order of the District Judge was then filed in this Court. The petition was founded on the ground that section 5 of the Act was ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The plea prevailed and this Court struck down section 5 of the Act, allowed the petition and quashed the order of the District Judge. The order of eviction having thus been set aside, fresh proceedings were commended against respondent No. 3 by the Estates Officer in accordance with the amended Act for his eviction from the quarter. This time again the proceedings culminated in an order of eviction. Against this order respondent No. 3 again filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jammu. A revision application before the Honâ„¢ble Revenue Minister was also filed simultaneously. The appeal before the District Judge is still pending but the revision before the Honâ„¢ble Revenue Minister has been dismissed with the observation that respondent No. 3 may not be dispossessed till the case is finally decided by the Government. The learned Revenue Minister passed the impugned order on 28 -8 -1971, the operative portion whereof reads as under : - "Till final decision of the case, Shri Ganga Ram be allowed to stay on in quarter No. 190. The ejectment proceedings against him from the said quarter be stayed."

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Revenue Minister had no jurisdiction to pass such an order as the Revenue Minister was not an authority under the Eviction Act. Mr. Amar Chand, Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the respondent has, however, contended that the Revenue Minister being a delegate of the Government had overall authority on behalf of the Government to direct the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer to stay the implementation of the order passed by the Estates Officer under section 5 of the Act.

(3.) THIS simple and shout question, therefore, which requires adjudication is whether the Revenue Minister can be said to be possessed of jurisdiction to stay the eviction of respondent No. 3 when the eviction of respondent No. 3 was the subject matter of proceedings under the Eviction Act. Section 5 of the Act as it stands after amendment reads thus: - "5. Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants. (1) When in pursuance of the notice under section 4, no objection is filed, or if an objection, not being an objection referred to a Civil Court under section 6 -A, is filed, then after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of producing evidence if any and of being heard; the Estates Officer shall on being satisfied that the public premises or part thereof is in unauthorised occupation make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded in writing, directing that the public premises or part thereof shall be vacated by the person in occupation thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such premises". A bare perusal of this section would show that once an Estates Officer finds on enquiry that a person is in unauthorised occupation of public premises, the Estates Officer has no option but to Pass an order of eviction. It is not disputed that the quarter in question is Government property and thus is a public remises as defined in the Act. What is contended by Mr. Amar Chand is that, the Government being the owner of the property and the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer being an Officer subordinate to the Government a direction could have been issued by the Revenue Minister on behalf of the Government to the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer not to give effect to the order of eviction which may be passed by the Estates Officer under section 5 of the Act. It is further contended that the command contained in section 5 of the Act is only to pass an order of eviction. An order passed by the Estates Officer evicting the unauthorised occupant, it is contended, can well be stayed by the Government or by the Revenue Minister on behalf of the Government if the circumstances otherwise warrant such stay. The argument is subtle but the subtility borders fallacy.