JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner is challenging the order passed by Estate Officer, under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be called 'Act') dated 28.6.85 and the appeal filed against such order dismissed vide order dated 10.8.87. 2. It is contended that the petitioner had taken the diputed land on rent on 1.10.67 from the Board of Muslim Waqf. A rent note was executed. The rent was paid right upto December, 1979, but thereafter the respondent had refused to take the rent. In the year 1970, the petitioner had also constructed two rooms on the land in question for the purpose of residence. 3. It was on 5.7.85 that the petitioner had come to know about an ex parte order passed on 28.6.85 by the Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the Act, copy of which is annexed as Ex.1. It is stated that before passing the ordr Ex.1, the petitioner had not been issued any notice under Section 4 nor such notice was published as was required under Section 5 of the Act. The appeal against the order Ex.1 was filed, but was dismissed vide order dated 10.8.87 (Ex.5). 4. For the reasons that Ex.1 had been passed exparte without affording any opportunity to petitioner to lead evidence, the petitioner had filed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with 151 Civil Procedure Code for furnishing additional documents before the Appellate Authority i.e. a judgment of Additional Civil Judge No.3, Jaipur City dated 30.9.86 and the copy of the rent-note. 5. The orders in question are being challenged, inter alia, on the grounds (1) notice under section 4(1) was not served in accordance with law as alleged; affixation made at the disputed place does not bear names of persons or witnesses; (2) the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 read with 151 Civil Procedure Code had been illegally rejected; (3) the petitioner was a tenant of respondent No.1 and he had paid rent right upto 1979; (4) two material documents produced before the Appellate Authority had not been considered. 6. 6. Apart from above, counsel for petitioner submitted that from the record of trial court which has been produced in this court it is revealed that (1) mind of the Estate Officer was pre-judged and biased for the reason that he had issued notices under Section 7(2) of the Act and under Section 4(1) of the Act on the same day i.e. 23.1.85; (2) the notices were not signed by the Estate Officer and had been signed by some other persons; (3) the reports on such notices were fabricated and the petitioner had never been served. 7. Further contention of the petitioner is that for the reason that the petitioner had been craving indulgence of the authorities below to the effect that notices have not been served and the Ex.1 had been passed without any opportunity to petitioner, it was incumbent upon respondent to have allowed the petitioner to lead evidence in this regard. 8. After going through the pleadings and orders and the record of the trial court, in my opinion, there is merit in the submission made by the petitioner. The record of Estate Officer reveals that one Purshotam Acharya was the Estate Office of Waqf property during that time. On the receipt of complaint, said Estate Officer is said to have issued two notices dated 23.1.85 under section 7(2) of the Act for recovery of an amount Rs. 9,888/-, at the rate of Rs. 103/- per month and on the same day the other notice was issued under section 4(1) of the Act for appearance of petitioner before him on 20.2.85 but the notices have been signed by one Makbool Hussain, the Reader of the Estate Officer, who was not authorised to sign any notice under section 4 or 7 of the Act. The identical report was made on both the notices that the petitioner had refused to accept the same. Only one witness Abdul Rashid, a Surveyor of the Waqf Boad had appeared as a witness who had deposed about the rent. 9. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act can only be invoked after the finding is given that the occupant is unauthorised person. Simultaneously issuing of notices under section 7(2) and 4(1) does create doubt of legal bias against the petitioner. The record does not show at all that the Estate Officer had proceeded in accordance with law. 10. Simultaneously issuing of notices under section 7(2) and 4(1) does create doubt of legal bias against the petitioner. The record does not show at all that the Estate Officer had proceeded in accordance with law. 10. The objection of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that there is no evidence produced before the Estate Officer that the petitioner had ever refused to accept the summons, is a valid objection as borne out from the record of Estate Officer. No one had appeared before the Estate Officer to show about service/non-service or the refusal on the part of petitioner. It was incumbent upon Estate Officer to satisfy himsej before proceeding exparte for eviction or passing the order of damages against the petitioner. 11. Section 4 and 7 of the Act are mandatory in nature, which read as under: "4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.-(1) If the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that the should be evicted the estate officer-shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) The notice shall (a) specifify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (4) Where the estate officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed." "7. Power to recover rent or damages in respect of public premises as arrears of land revenue.-(1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (2) Where any person is or has at any time been in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in order. (3) No order under sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified, in the notice why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the estate officer." 12. Section 4 provides that the notice shall be issued by Estate Officer if he is of the opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation. Sub-section(4) further provides that if any person is in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Estate Officer would cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person etc. etc. Sub-section(4) further provides that if any person is in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Estate Officer would cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person etc. etc. 13. Admittedly in the present case neither the notices have been signed by the Estate Officer nor it confirms to the mandatory provisions of section 4 nor it was served as per sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Act. The Estate Officer was knowing that the petitioner has constructed a house thereon and living in it.It is not sufficient for the purpose of service that on the very first notice of appearance, the Estate Officer could pass the order of affixation without taking the recourse to the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of the Section 4 and thus mandatory provisions of Section 4 having been violated by the Estate Officer, all consequential proceedings in the present case fall. The appellate Authority has not applied its mind in the case and has not even looked into the procedure or record or mode of service affected in the present case, and therefore, the finding of Appellate Authority that service was in accordane with the Section 4 of the Act cannot be sustained. 14. It may also be mentioned that the very Reader of the Estate Officer had even gone to the extent of issuing notice, on the same day, under Section 4 and also the notice under Section 7(2) of the Act. The provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act can be invoked against a person who is unauthorised occupant and before issuing any such notice, the Estate Officer should give an opinion that such person was an unauthorised occupant and that can only be given after giving proper notice and adjudication. 15. In any case, in the present case, no such notice was issued by the Estate Officer as such notice was issued and signed by the Reader of Estate Officer. The provisions as required under the Act are to be complied with by the authorities mentioned in the Act. 15. In any case, in the present case, no such notice was issued by the Estate Officer as such notice was issued and signed by the Reader of Estate Officer. The provisions as required under the Act are to be complied with by the authorities mentioned in the Act. The Reader of the Estate Officer has no authority under the Act to issue notice either under Section 4 or under Section 7, and as such, the very initiation of the proceeding by the Estate Officer, in the present case was not in accordance with law. The impugned orders are set aside. For the reasons that I am setting aside the impugned orders of Estate Officer and also of the Appellate Authority, I need not to go into other submissions made in the present case.For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders 28.6.85 (Ann.1) and 10.8.87 (Ann.5) are set aside. No costs.Petition Allowed. *******