UNION OF INDIA Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JHALAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India has come up in this writ petition against the order dated 2. 7. 1996 passed by Estate Officer (SDM Jhalawar) and dated 10. 10. 2001 by the Appellate Authority (District Judge, Jhalawar) respectively under Sections 4 and 9 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short `the Act of 1964 ).

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that the Municipal Council, Jhalawar filed an application under Section 4 of the Act of 1964 inter alia on the premise that the building in which the post office, Mangalpur at Jhalawar was housed was let out to Union of India by the Municipality on 1. 1. 68 at the monthly rent of Rs. 75/ -. The Union Government owes to the Council payment of sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards arrears of rent as on 19. 1. 95. It was therefore prayed that the order for eviction of the Post Office be passed and vacant possession of the building should be ordered to be handed over to the Municipal Council.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri B. N. Sandu, has argued that the building in question has been in possession of and used for the post office. It is located in Brijnagar area known as Post Office, Mangalpura. The exruler of the then State of Bhilwara has constructed the said building in the year 1936 and ever since it is being used by the post office. Thereafter the State of Bhilwara merged into the State of Rajputana, which was later reorganised as State of Rajasthan. The State of Rajasthan on attainment of freedom by the nation became Part-B State of Union of India. With the adoption of the Constitution of India, the said building came to be vested in Union of India by virtue of Article 295 of the Constitution. The Municipal Council, Bhilwara illegally raised a demand of Rs. 4,500/- as arrears of rent for the period from 1. 7. 68 till 31. 8. 1982. Only because the Municipal Council raised the demand and the petitioner did not make payment of the same, the Estate Officer and, for that matter, the Appellate Authority does not get the jurisdiction to declare the petitioner Union of India as tenant of the Municipal Council. Neither the Estate Officer, nor the Appellate Authority examined the pointed arguments raised by the petitioner with regard to Article 295 of the Constitution of India that the property in question came to be vested in the Union Government and therefore it could not be adjudged as tenant of the respondent Municipal Council. Even if by mistake, the officials of the postal department made payment of rent for a particular month to the Municipal Council, that by its cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of the ownership of the Municipal Council. As regards the question of title, if at all the Municipal Council claims to possess the title of the building in question, it can do so only by filing a Civil Suit in the appropriate Court of law. The learned Estate Officer as well as the Appellate Authority have therefore erred in law in not requiring the Municipal Council to first get its title or ownership over the building in question established before proceeding to examine the matter. He, therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside and the property in question should be declared as that of Union of India.