Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2435 (RAJ)

R. N. Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-13

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-On 08.02.1996 an application was preferred by the competent officer of the Government of Rajasthan before the Estate Officer, Mahi Project, Banswara appointed under Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 to evict the petitioner from the unauthorized occupation of the Government accommodation. The application submitted by the competent officer of the Government of Rajasthan was accepted by the Estate Officer by the order dated 29.03.1996. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1968 before the District Judge, Banswara. The appeal also came to be rejected by a Judgment dated 010.1996. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of present writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer in the Department of Irrigation, was posted in Banswara at Mahi Project of the Department of Irrigation and was posted therefrom to Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Bikaner on 30.06.1990. At the time of transfer the petitioner was availing the facility of Government residential accommodation at Banswara. The aforesaid residential accommodation was not vacated by him after his transfer from Banswara to Bikaner. The petitioner was reposted at Banswara on his transfer from Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Bikaner to Mahi Project on 112.1992. The petitioner being having possession over the residential accommodation in question retained the same with him. A notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1968 thereafter was served upon him in the year 1996 as a consequence of which the orders impugned were passed by the Estate Officer and the District Judge, Banswara. 4. The contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the office order dated 210.1993 passed by the Superintending Engineer and Technical Assistant to the Chief Engineer, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara the petitioner could not be termed as an unauthorized occupant of the premises in the year 1996, as such, the order of eviction from the premises in question is illegal. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents in general defending the order passed by the Estate Officer as well as by the learned District Judge, Banswara. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. 7. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents in general defending the order passed by the Estate Officer as well as by the learned District Judge, Banswara. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner was admittedly transferred from Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara to Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Bikaner on 30.06.1990 and was reposted in Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project on 112.1992 during the period above the possession of the residential accommodation in question was with the petitioner. The petitioner on reposting at Banswara continued with occupation of the residential accommodation and for the first time in the year 1996 he was served with a notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1968. An application for eviction was also filed before the Estate Officer in the month of February, 1996. Precisely this Court is required to examine as to whether on the date the application was preferred under the Act of 1968, the petitioner could be termed as an unauthorized occupant of the residential accommodation. The petitioner has placed reliance upon an order dated 210.1993 passed by the Superintending Engineer-cum-Technical Assistant to the Chief Engineer, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara which prescribes the eventualities wherein an occupant of Government accommodation can be treated as unauthorized occupant, Clause(c) of the Para 2 of the aforesaid order provides that a person who has been transferred outside the project or retired from Government service and has not vacated such Government accommodation as per Rules shall be treated as unauthorized occupant. A proviso to it further provides that the facility to avail Government accommodation shall be allowed to a Government servant on normal rent or rent free as the case may be if officer/official is reposted in the project from the date of joining duty in the Project. In view of Clause (c) referred above I am having no doubt that the petitioner was unauthorized occupant of the premises for the period he was posted at Bikaner but after his reposting in project the occupation of the petitioner on the premises in question was validated in light of proviso to Clause(c) referred above. The petitioner, therefore, after 112.1992 could not be treated as unauthorized occupant. The petitioner, therefore, after 112.1992 could not be treated as unauthorized occupant. The respondents initiated proceedings under the Act of 1968 against the petitioner in the month of February, 1996 and on that date the petitioner by no stretch of imagination could be termed or treated as an unauthorized occupant of Government residential premises. 8. In view of it, I am of the considered opinion that the Estate Officer as well as the District Judge committed an error apparent while treating the petitioner as an unauthorized occupant of the Government premises. The error committed by the Court below required to be rectified. Therefore, the orders impugned dated 29.03.1996 passed by the Estate Officer, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara in Unauthorized Occupant Case No. 5/1996 and the Judgment dated 010.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Banswara in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4/1996 are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.