Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2014 (RAJ)

Basanti v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-07-13

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter to be referred as 'the appellate court'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The said appeal was filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the judgment dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Estate Officer, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Estate Officer'), whereby the application filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan through the Inspector, Devasthan Department has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Inspector, Devasthan Department filed an application before the Estate Officer in the year 2007 under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1964') alleging that Institution Kabir Panthi Bagechi, Jodhpur (for short 'the premises in question' hereinafter) is the property of Devasthan Department and as such is a public premises and the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question since 2007. 3. It is stated that notices were issued to the petitioners on 21.06.2007 to vacate their possession from the premises in question but despite that the same has not been vacated by them. It is prayed that the unauthorised occupation be evicted from the premises in question and the petitioners be directed to pay rent to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month from 01.07.2007 with interest at the rate of 18%. 4. The application for eviction preferred on behalf of the Devasthan Department was contested by the petitioners and a reply to the said application was filed by them stating that the premises in question belongs to them and it is not a public premises. It is alleged that initially the premises in question was constructed by Mahant Prem Das and after his death in the year 1997, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, Jasraj Soni was anointed as Chela of Mahant Prem Das of the premises in question and since then the petitioners are in possession of the premises in question. In support of their claim, copies of electricity bills and water bills etc. were produced. 5. 2 and 3, Jasraj Soni was anointed as Chela of Mahant Prem Das of the premises in question and since then the petitioners are in possession of the premises in question. In support of their claim, copies of electricity bills and water bills etc. were produced. 5. The Estate Officer on 23.09.2011 passed an order for evicting the petitioners from the premises in question. It appears that the petitioners were not provided any opportunity to produce their evidence and, therefore, an application was moved on their behalf, which was allowed and the petitioners were permitted to produce the evidence in support of their claim. An affidavit of petitioner No. 1 was filed on 29.11.2011 and she was cross-examined on 01.02.2012, however, the Estate Officer vide order dated 21.09.2012, without appreciating the said evidence, had ordered that as no new facts have been emerged from the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioners, the order of eviction dated 23.09.2011 is maintained. 6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.09.2012, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 before the appellate court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 12.09.2019 and the matter was remanded to the Estate Officer to decide the eviction application afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Pursuant to the said remand order, the matter was taken up by the Estate Officer. No one had appeared on behalf of the Devasthan Department before the Estate Officer and after hearing counsel for the petitioners ex parte, the Estate Officer passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2022 and ordered for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question. 7. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.01.2022, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate court, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.05.2022. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the premises in question cannot be termed as 'public premises' as the petitioners have produced several documentary evidence such as electricity bill, water bill etc. in support of their claim that they are not in un-authorised occupation of the premises in question. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the premises in question was constructed by Mahant Prem Das and after his death, husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. in support of their claim that they are not in un-authorised occupation of the premises in question. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the premises in question was constructed by Mahant Prem Das and after his death, husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was anointed as Mahant. It is submitted that the petitioners are owners of the premises in question but the courts below without taking into consideration the evidence produced by them have illegally passed the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are illegal and perverse and, therefore, it is prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the premises in question belongs to Devasthan Department and the same has been published in Official Gazette of State of Rajasthan on 25.06.1981, whereby the premises in question is declared as Devasthan Department's property. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that from the evidence of petitioner No. 1 produced before the Estate Officer, it is clear that the premises in question belongs to the Devasthan Department as the petitioner No. 1 has admitted in her cross-examination that Kabir Panthi Bagechi is controlled by the Devasthan Department and the Devasthan Department is the owner of the same. She has also admitted that the Devasthan Department has not appointed her on any post and has also not rented out or handed over the said property to her. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of the Gazette Notification as well as the admission of the petitioner No. 1, it is clear that the premises in question falls within the definition of "public premises" as mentioned in Section 2(b)(vii) of the Act of 1964. It is submitted that taking into consideration the Gazette Notification and the admission of the petitioner No. 1, the Estate Officer as well as the appellate court have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. 12. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 13. From the Gazette Notification dated 25.06.1981, it is clear that the premises in question is a property of Devasthan Department and the same is not disputed by the petitioners. 12. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 13. From the Gazette Notification dated 25.06.1981, it is clear that the premises in question is a property of Devasthan Department and the same is not disputed by the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 has submitted her affidavit before the Estate Officer in support of her claim and she was cross-examined in which she specifically admitted that the premises in question belongs to the Devasthan Department and the department has not rented the same to her and has also not handed it over to her. 14. In view of the Gazette Notification and clear admission of the petitioner No. 1, I am of the opinion that the Estate Officer as well as the appellate court have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. 15. Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. 16. Stay petition also stands dismissed.