Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 316 (RAJ)

Magan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-03

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioners have assailed the validity of the Judgment dated 17.09.1993 passed by learned District Judge, Bikaner exercising powers under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1964) whereby he affirmed the order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act of 1964. 2. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned dated 17.09.1993 suffers from an error apparent on the face of record as the Court below failed to appreciate that the notice under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act were issued in the name of Sh. Chhagan Lal who died much back on 15.08.1969. To substantiate this fact a death certificate issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, Bikaner is placed on record. Learned District Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter and held that the service of the notice was sufficient in accordance with law. 3. I have perused the notice issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4(1) as well as under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1964. Both the notices are in the name of late Sh. Chhagan Lal who happened to be father of the petitioner. An endorsement is made on the returned notices issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1964 that the same was received on 5th April, 1984. However, who received this notice is not clear. In any case, there was no occasion to issue notice in the name of Sh. Chhagan Lal who died much back in the year 1969. The notice was required to be issued to the person interested who were having occupation over the premises. The petitioners have claimed that they are in occupation over the premises and they are the persons interested, hence, opportunity under Section 4 as well as under Section 5 of the Act required to be given to them. 4. After perusing the pleadings as well as the documents I am of the considered opinion that the notices issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4 as well as under Section 5 of the Act were not served upon the petitioners who are the persons interested. 4. After perusing the pleadings as well as the documents I am of the considered opinion that the notices issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4 as well as under Section 5 of the Act were not served upon the petitioners who are the persons interested. The learned District Judge failed to appreciate the fact with regard to non-service of the notices issued by the Estate Officer upon the person interested. In view of it the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 17.09.1993 deserves to be quashed. The order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 4 as well as under Section 5 also deserves to be quashed. All the aforesaid impugned orders therefore are hereby quashed and set aside. The parties at this stage are in agreement to appear before the Estate Officer to proceed with the proceedings under the Act of 1964 on 9th March 2005. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of . The cost of the petition is made easy.