RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge Court, Bokaro to hear and dispose of the appeals filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971, in short the said Act.

(2.) IT appears that petitioner was employed in Board Steel Plant since 1969 and he was superannuated in 1996. It is contended by the petitioner that instead of payment of retiral benefits the respondents have initiated a proceeding for eviction under the said Act. The Estate Officer exercising power under the said Act passed final order in the said proceeding and ordered for conviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred appeal under Section 9 of the said Act before the District Judge, Bokaro being MA No. 4/2001. The District Judge, Bokaro after admitting the appeal transferred the same to the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Bokaro for disposal. Before the Additional District Judge. Bokaro, petitioner filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that it is only the District Judge or the Judicial Officer whom power is delegated by the District Judge has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Respondents in their counter -affidavit have stated that as per the service condition petitioner was required to vacate the quarter within two months from the date of superannuation. But the petitioner has been continuing in unauthorized occupation of the quarter although his retiral benefits have been calculated and the same is lying with the respondents but the petitioner deliberately avoiding to receive the retiral dues.

(3.) BEFORE deciding the question, I would like to refer Section 9 of the said Act, which reads as under :