KAMAL KANWAR Vs. ESTATE OFFICER DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants-plaintiffs, who are the daughters of the original plaintiff, Nanu Singh, a retired R.I. of Police Department, are before this Court in the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of two courts below in a suit for injunction filed by the original plaintiff, Nanu Singh, during his lifetime, who is alleged to have expired on 09.05.2006, during the pendency of the Civil Suit No.149/1997 [Nanu Singh Vs. Estate Officer, Addl. District Magistrate (Urban), Bikaner], instituted by Nanu Singh against the Estate Officer with respect to suit property, public premises, known as 'Kohina House', situated near 'Sattarkhana' at Bikaner.

(2.) THE relevant facts required for the purpose of disposal of this second appeal are that the impugned eviction proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer, Bikaner seeking eviction of the plaintiff, Nanu Singh, from the suit property under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1964') way back in the year 1973 by issuing notice under Section 4 of the said Act. However, the then Estate Officer dropped the proceedings against the plaintiff, Nanu Singh, vide his order dated 24.10.1973, which order was withdrawn shortly thereafter on 12.11.1973 by the Estate Officer himself. THE plaintiff, Nanu Singh, a police personnel, challenged the said order dated 12.11.1973 recalling the previous order dated 24.10.1973 before this Court by filing writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No.2053/1973- Nanu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which however, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on November 30, 1978 holding as under: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, sought to submit that in the cross-examination, the departmental witness admitted that they have not brought any record showing the proceedings of Section 4 and 5 of the Act of 1964 having been undertaken by the Estate Officer; and therefore, the findings resulting in dismissal of the suit should be held to be perverse. This Court is not impressed with this submission. The concurrent findings are based on evidence brought before the trial court below and the during the course of the contest by the plaintiff, Nanu Singh, who was a retired police personnel, before this Court and before the Estate Officer and also while pursuing his injunction suit before the courts below and his failure to file any suit for declaration claiming title over the said property, leaves no manner of doubt that concurrent findings arrived at by the two courts below regarding premises in question being public premise and eviction thereof having been ordered by the Estate Officer on 26.03.1997 in pursuance of the notice under Section 4 issued in 1973 itself, after dismissal of his writ petition before this Court up-to Division Bench, and admittedly the said orders having become final, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below cannot be said to be perverse so as to give rise to any substantial question of law, as alleged in the present second appeal.