Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1765 (JHR)

Om Narayan Singh @ Tuntun Singh v. Union of India

2012-12-20

P.P.BHATT

body2012
ORDER By the Court.- The petitioner, by way of filing the present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure-10), passed by learned District Judge, III, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 2011, whereby the petition dated 14.2.2012 (Annexure-8), filed by the petitioner for maintaining status quo with regard to demolition of suit property, has been rejected. It is further prayed that appropriate order may be passed directing the respondent to desist/refrain from demolishing the structure of the petitioner during pendency of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 2011 as well as the instant writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other papers and materials placed on record. 3. From perusal of the same, it transpires that the proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and since then the matter is pending before the competent authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The matter is also travelled upto this Court on three occasions and this Court while dealing with the writ petition filed by the present petitioner, remanded the matter with a direction to the Competent Authority to deal with and dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law. 4. The brief facts of the case are pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India from the Annexure-3 i.e. the order passed by the competent Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 5 Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. On perusal of the said facts, it appears that from time to time attempt has been made by the petitioner to delay the proceeding. The proceedings are pending since 1977-78. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to justify by referring the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3475 of 2004 that the petitioner is not responsible for causing delay as competent Authority during the relevant period was not available and the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. 1971 has been delayed on account of non-availability of the competent authority. 1971 has been delayed on account of non-availability of the competent authority. The aforesaid argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted in light of the facts and circumstances described in the judgment passed by the competent authority which is produced along with the petition vide Annexure-3. The proceedings are pending since 1978 and the Miscellaneous appeal No. 17 of 2011 is also pending since last more than one year. It reveals from the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 3475 of 2004 that the matter was remanded to the competent authority in the year 2009 and thereafter, the order vide Annexure-3 was passed by the competent authority on 29.9.2011 and thereafter, the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 2011 was filed by the present petitioner. Along with this appeal, an application for grant of interim stay was moved by the petitioner but the said application has been dismissed by assigning reasons by the Appellate Authority. 6. On perusal of Para 10 to 12 of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it appears that the present petitioner is not having prima facie case and therefore, the Appellate Authority declined to grant any order of status quo. The Appellate Authority has also taken note of the factual aspect of the matter while dealing with the said application that the petitioner is not having prima facie case. When the petitioner is unable to make prima facie case, there is no question of grant of any interim relief with regard to the maintenance of status quo, during the pendency of appeal. therefore, this Court is of the view that the view expressed by the Appellate Court is in accordance with law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case, has referred to and relied upon the following two decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court; 1. 1982 (3) SCC 484 ; 2. 2008(10) SCC 796. 8. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India has also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2011 (2) SCC 461 and while referring paragraph 47 of the said judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for. 2008(10) SCC 796. 8. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India has also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2011 (2) SCC 461 and while referring paragraph 47 of the said judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for. The learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to and relied upon the observations made by the competent authority while dealing with the case against the present petitioner, wherein the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been quoted by the Estate Officer. From perusal of the relevant observations made in the said order at Page 37 (Annexure-17), it appears that the Estate Officer while dealing with the matter filed under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, after careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances involved in the matter and on the basis of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. passed the order against the present petitioner. Thereafter, in appeal proceeding. the Appellate Court, while dealing with the application with regard to grant of interim stay, has discussed the factual aspect of the matter and reached to the conclusion that the petitioner is not having prima facie case and therefore, declined to pass interim order in favour of the petitioner. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the present petitioner. The judgment, which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in 2010 (2) SCC 461 is on the issue of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and the same is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Under the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be rejected. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.