JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners, Sitaram & Mohanlal, are aggrieved by an order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority (respondent No. 2) made under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for brevity, 'the Act'), dated 12.9.1975 (Annexure) and the appellate order dated 21.12.1997 (Annexure 1) passed by the District Judge. Jaipur district, Jaipur (respondent No. 5) under Section 9 of the Act dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of eviction passed by the Competent authority. 2. Only argument advanced in respect of this petition is that the order of eviction was made without any notice to the petitioners who were the owners of the properties and were undoubtedly the persons most vitally affected and concerned with the same. 3. Only material facts for deciding the above point are now stated. The property in question is a shop in Amer on the outskirt of City of Jaipur abutting the National Highway. The property was purchased by a registered sale-deed dated 6.12.1971 (Annexure C) by the petitioners from the previous owner, Kalyan BUx through his Attorney, previous owner, Kalyan Bux through his Attorney, Hanuman Sahai. The petitioners claimed that subsequent to the purchase by them, they have made construction therein with the sanction of the Municipal Board, Amer as is evident from the document for the purpose. 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, a notice in writing is required to be given to 'all persons concerned", to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made; and therefore such a notice should have been given to the petitioners who were the most concerned persons even since the purchase of the property in question on 6.12.1971 much prior to the making of the eviction order by the competent Authority. Admittedly, no such notice was given to these petitioners and the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was given only to the aforesaid, Hanuman Sahai, Attorney of Kalyan Bux prior to the purchase of property by the petitioners. The aforesaid Kalyan Bux or his Attorney, Hanuman Sahai, took no action in reply to the notice and did not even care to inform the competent Authority of the sale of property to the petitioners on 6.12.1971. The aforesaid Kalyan Bux or his Attorney, Hanuman Sahai, took no action in reply to the notice and did not even care to inform the competent Authority of the sale of property to the petitioners on 6.12.1971. The eviction proceedings, therefore, continued before the Competent Authority resulting in an order of eviction being made thereafter. The question is, whether the eviction order is vitiated on account of the absence of the notice to the petitioners, in these circumstances (?) 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act requires a notice in writing to be given to all persons concerned, calling upon them to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. On the above facts, it cannot be doubted that the petitioners were undoubtedly "persons concerned" in the matter and in fact, are most vitally concerned persons to participate in the eviction proceedings since they had purchased the property on 6.12.1971 and their predecessor-in-title, Kalyan Bux or his Attorney, Hanuman Sahai, had ceased to have any interest therein from that time. It is no doubt true that no intimation appears to have been given to the Competent Authority of this transfer and that may be the reason for absence of the notice to the petitioners. The petitioner's case is that they were not aware of the pending eviction proceedings and, therefore, they could not appear before the Competent Authority to participate in these proceedings. There is no reason to reject this assertion as untrue. The position, therefore, is that the petitioners who were the most 'concerned persons' with the eviction, did not get an opportunity of being heard before the eviction order was made. The fact that the construction was made on the property in question by the petitioners after the purchase and before the eviction order came to be made with the Municipal sanction, indicates that the Competent Authority did not take the requisite steps to ascertain as to who were "all persons concerned" in this case. The construction at the spot and the information available in the Municipal Office would have clearly revealed the fact of ownership and transfer of property in petitioner's favour on 6.12.1971 but no one had taken the trouble of making even the least enquiry for ascertaining as to who were the 'persons concerned' in this particular case. The construction at the spot and the information available in the Municipal Office would have clearly revealed the fact of ownership and transfer of property in petitioner's favour on 6.12.1971 but no one had taken the trouble of making even the least enquiry for ascertaining as to who were the 'persons concerned' in this particular case. It is, therefore, a case where the want of notice to the petitioners has resulted also from inaction on the part of the Competent Authority to his extent. We are satisfied that in these circumstances, the petitioners ought to be heard before any eviction order can be made to bind them and evict them from the property which they purchased in this manner. 6. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned eviction order dated 12.9.1975 of the Competent Authority as well as the Appellate order dated 21.12.1977 passed by the District Judge are quashed. The Competent Authority shall proceed to decide the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners of showing cause as to why the order of eviction should not be made. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Competent Authority (respondent No. 2) on 17.8.1988 and this shall be treated as sufficient compliance of the notice required to be given to them under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. In other words, no further notice under Section 4(1) of the Act is required to be given to the petitioners. 7. No Costs.Petition allowed. *******