BIJA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the afore-mentioned fifty writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in all of them identical and similar questions of law and facts are involved. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3484/2002

(2.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 11-9-2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order dr direction, the order dated 9-1-2001 (Ex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 2 Air Officer Commanding an-d Estate Officer, Air Force Station, Jodhpur by which he in exercise of the power conferred under the provisions of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1971") ordered the petitioner and other persons to vacate the premises in their occupation mentioned in schedule within 15 days of the date of publication of that order and the judgment dated 13-8-2002 (Ex. 2) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) by which the appeal of the petitioner against the order Ex. 1 was dismissed, be quashed and set aside and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be retrained from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute.

(3.) The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows : The case of the petitioner is that he has his immovable property i.e. residential house in Haripura Vyas Colony (for short "Colony") located towards east of the old Jodhpur-Pali Road near the Air Force Area, Jodhpur. According to the petitioner, the said Colony is in existence for more than 30 years and the persons residing in this Colony including the petitioner have constructed their own houses and are living there with their families. They have their family ration cards, water and electricity connections and sewerage line connected with the sanitary line constructed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and the names of the eligible electors appear in the voter lists of the Lok Sabha, Rajsthan Vidhan Sabha and the Municipal Corporation of Jodhpur. Identity cards have also been issued to them. The further case of the petitioner is that a survey was got conducted by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur time and again and ultimately the State Government took a decision to regularise the inhabitants of this Colony by issuing licenses and lease deeds in their favour. When the Urban Improvement Trust started issuing lease deeds, objections were raised on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 not to issue leases. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that the Colony is habited on the land belonging to the Air Force. When a threat of demolition and dispossession was raised, number of persons residing in the colony approached civil Court for redress against the respondent No. 2 and so also the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. A dispute was raised in between the defendants i.e., the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the one hand and the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, on the other hand as to whom the land under the colony belonged. Since the old and established possession was there the civil Court issued an order that persons in established possession cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. The Urban Improvement Trust categorically stated before the civil Court that in case land belongs to the Trust they are going to regularise possession by issuing title deeds. The further case of the petitioner is that when a title is disputed as to whether the land belonged to the State Government and vested in the Urban Improvement Trust or whether it belonged to the Air Force, the same can only be decided by a competent Civil Court or the revenue Court by a regular suit. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 Estate Officer gave a notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 nearly to 61 persons (inhabitants of that colony) and all persons submitted their replies and alleged that the respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue any notice to them as the land in dispute does not belong to Air Force and, therefore, the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act of 1971 are contrary to law and in view of this fact, order Ex. 1 passed by the respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained. Apart from this, it has been further submitted by the petitioner that the land asalleged by the respondent No. 2 belongs to the Air Force and the respondent No. 2 himself is the Estate Officer i.e. Judge in his own cause and passed the order Ex. 1 under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 and, therefore, order Ex. 1 itself is vitiated since no one can be a Judge in his own cause. From this point of view also, order Ex. 1 cannot be sustained. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 Estate Officer took a subjective decision and passed an order Ex. 1 against the petitioner and other persons. Aggrieved from that order Ex. 1, all the persons including the present petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 3 Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, but the respondent No. 3 dismissed the appeal of 56 persons vide judgment dated 13-8-2002, a copy of which is marked as Ex. 2. Hence, this wrilxpetition with the prayers as stated above. In this writ petition, the following submissions have been made by the petitioner: