ORDER 1. The issue which crops up for consideration in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as to whether in absence of an eviction order under section 5 of M. P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (referred to as Adhiniyam 1974) or an order under section 7 of Adhiniyam, 1974 whether it will be within the appellate authority to entertain an appeal under section 9 of Adhiniyam, 1974. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to controversy are that, the respondent, invoking section 5 of Adhiniyam, 1974 filed an application before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sabalgarh, Morena (Annexure P-2) for eviction of unauthorized occupants from temple premises. The authority concerned rejected the application by order dated 2.8.2017 in the following terms: ^^izdj.k v/;;u mijkar vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq fu;r FkkA izdj.k dk vk/kksikar v/;;u fd;k x;kA izdj.k ds voyksdu ls lekËkku gksrk gS fd yksd ifjlj csn[kyh vf/kfu;e 1974 ,oa 1975 ds vuqlkj dsoy 'kkldh; ifjlj esa vuf/k—r O;fDr dks csn[ky djus dk izko/kku gSA vkosnd dk vkosnu yskd ifjlj csn[kyh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr izpyu ;ksX; u gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k lekIrA ckn dk;Zokgh izdj.k vad ls de gksdj nkf[ky fjdkMZ gksA^^ 3. Aggrieved, respondent preferred an appeal under section 9 of Adhiniyam, 1974 before Collector, Morena, who by impugned order dated 3.7.2018 partly allowed the appeal in the following terms: ^^4- esjs }kjk izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ,oa vihykUV vfHkHkk"kd rFkk jsLiksUMsUV ds rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k tkdj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh izdj.k if=dk dk Hkyh&Hkkf¡r ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA vihykUV }kjk vihy vkosnu ds layXu izLrqr iqtkjh jftLVj o”kZ 1996 ds lhfj;y Øekad 98 ij ntZ jftLVj dh Nk;kizfr esa eafnj Jh y{ehukjk;.k th lcyx<+ ntZ gksdj vihykUV dk uke iqtkjh ds :i esa ntZ gS rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds iz'uk/khu izdj.k esa mDr eafnj ls yxh gqbZ Hkwfe losZ Øekad 599 jdck 1-494 ds dkWye ua- 3 esa eafnj Jh y{ehukjk;.k th cka¡ds dLck lcyx<+ vafdr gksdj vihykUV dk uke iqtkjh ds :i esa vafdr gSA mDr eafnj ekQh vkSdkQ dk gksus ls 'kkldh; lEifRr dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gSA vihykUV }kjk vihy vkosnu ds layXu Fkkuk lcyx<+ dh ,QvkbZvkj u- ¼iz-lw-fj-la-½%0272 fnukad 6-7-2017 eas izFke lwpuk esa rF;ksa es amfYyf[kr gS fd jsLiksUMsUV yhyk—".k feJ }kjk 'kklu laËkkfjr eafnjksa ds jftLVj dks voyksdu gsrq ek¡xk x;kA voyksdu djrs le; dkWye ua-3 esa lcyx<+ ds uhps vyx L;kgh dh dye ls ^fdyk^ 'kCn jsLiksUMsUV yhyk—".k feJ }kjk fy[k fn;k tkus ls Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860 dh /kkjk 420] 467] 468 dk vijkËk iathc) fd;k x;k gS] ftlls Li"V gS fd jsLiksUMsUV }kjk eafnj ds vfHkys[k ls NsM+NkM+ dj mifjys[ku fd;k x;k rFkk ekQh vkSdkQ foHkkx ds 'kkldh; eafnj ds vfHkys[k dks [kqnZ cqnZ djus dh dksf'k'k Hkh dh xbZA vr% vihykUV }kjk izLrqr vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkdj v/khuLFk vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ lcyx<+ dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izdj.k esa iz'ukËkhu eafnj y{ehukjk;.k th ck¡ds dLck lcyx<+ dk vki Lo;a fujh{k.k djsa rFkk eafnj dh 'kkldh; Hkwfe vFkok lEifRr ij jsLiksUMsUV vFkok vU; fdlh dk dksbZ voS/k dCtk ik;k tkos rks mls fu;ekuqlkj gVok;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh djsaA^^ 4. Petitioner takes exception to the appellate order on the contention that under section 9 of Adhiniyam, 1974 an appeal lies only against the order of eviction and not against ‘any order’. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 6. Considered the rival submissions. 7. Section 9 of Adhiniyam, 1974 envisages: “9. Appeals. Petitioner takes exception to the appellate order on the contention that under section 9 of Adhiniyam, 1974 an appeal lies only against the order of eviction and not against ‘any order’. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 6. Considered the rival submissions. 7. Section 9 of Adhiniyam, 1974 envisages: “9. Appeals. - (1) The State Government may, by notification, appoint such person being an officer not below the rank of Collector as appellate authority for the purpose of this Act in respect of such areas as may be specified in the notification. (2) An appeal shall lie from every order of the competent authority made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or section 7 to the appellate authority appointed under subsection (1). (3) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall lie,- (a) in case of an appeal from an order under section 5, within fifteen days from the date of publication of the order under sub-section (1) of that section; and (b) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 7, within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant: Provided that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, if such authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (4) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the competent authority, the appellate authority may stay the enforcement of that order for a total period not exceeding sixty days and on such conditions as it may deem fit. (5) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate authority as expeditiously as possible. (6) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate authority.” 8. In Khushal Chand v. State of M. P. & others [ 2001 (1) MPLJ 680 ] learned Single Judge of this Court had an occasion to dwell upon the scope of section 9 of Adhiniyam, 1974 in similar context as the present one, and held: “10. Section 9 of the Adhiniyam provides for an appeal from every order of the competent authority made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or 7 to the appellate authority. Section 9 of the Adhiniyam provides for an appeal from every order of the competent authority made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or 7 to the appellate authority. Section 7 of the Adhiniyam relates to passing an order of payment of rent or damages for unauthorised occupation of public premises. On bare reading of sub-section (3) of section 7 it is clear that no order under sub-section (1) or 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 any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the competent authority. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 7 relate to order directing the person in unauthorised occupation to pay arrears of rent or damages. Therefore, the orders for eviction or orders passed under section 5 or 7 alone are appealable under section 9 of the Adhiniyam. Since no orders on application have been passed, appeal under section 9 of the Adhiniyam itself was not maintainable. The appellate authority has wrongly entertained the appeal.” 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the appeal lies against ‘every order’ and not ‘any order’, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by learned single Judge. 10. In the case at hand, when impugned order is tested on the anvil of above analysis, the same cannot be given the stamp of approval. Consequently, set aside. 11.The respondent, however, in given facts cannot be left remedi less; therefore is set at liberty to avail the remedi against the order dated 2.8.2017 passed by Sub- Divisional Officer before appropriate forum. 12. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.