JUDGMENT : Madan Gopal Vyas, J. 1. The present civil first appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC has been preferred by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Civil Original Suit No.2/85 whereby the suit preferred by the plaintiff-respondent seeking decree against the defendants-appellants - Union of India for awarding Rs.10,000/- damages, has been allowed. 2. The facts in nutshell as stated in the suit by the plaintiff-respondent are that three shops ad-measuring 25x8 Sq. ft. were situated outside the precincts of Railway Station, Kankroli (hereinafter referred to as "the suit shops in question"). It is submitted that in the said shops, the plaintiff and his tenants were running a grocery shop and a cycle repair shop. On 13.07.1981 at about 9:00 - 9:30 AM, Railway Officers alongwith 100 persons came and started demolishing the shops. When the plaintiff objected the same and demanded authorization document for damages from demolishing the shops, the officers of the Railway did not show any order to the plaintiff and demolished the shops. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- for demolition and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony. It was averred that the defendants had no legal right to demolish the shops in question, and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to damages. In the plaint, it was further stated that on 12.06.1981, the plaintiff served the notice under Section 80 of the CPC upon the defendants demanding the aforesaid amount but they have not paid the amount, therefore, the suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs was preferred by the plaintiff. 3. The defendants-appellants submitted written submissions to the suit denying the facts made in the suit and specifically submitted that the shops in question have been illegally constructed in the precincts of the railway station, therefore, the plaintiff is an encroacher. It is submitted that under Section 5 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1971"), proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff-respondent and an order dated 18.01.1978 was passed by the Estate Officer for removing the encroachment and the plaintiff was informed regarding the same. Since the plaintiff failed to remove the encroachment, therefore, the shops were demolished on 13.07.1981. Since the plaintiff failed to remove the encroachment, therefore, the shops were demolished on 13.07.1981. In the written statement, it was further stated that in view of Section 10 of the Act of 1971, the order passed by Estate Officer is final and the same cannot be questioned in any suit, application or execution proceeding. It was also stated in the written statement that the suit is barred by limitation, and therefore, the same may be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 7 issues which are as follows :- 5. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined 5 witnesses and produced documentary evidence and the defendants-appellants examined 3 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. Thereafter vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.01.1990, the learned trial Court decreed the suit, hence the present first appeal. 6. Challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.01.1990, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly decided issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly held that the shops in question are situated over the land of Municipality. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence, oral or documentary to prove that the shops are constructed over the land of Municipality and are not situated on the land of Railways. It is submitted that if the statements of DW-1 (Dharma Kumar Handa) are seen, he has specifically stated that before conducting the demolition proceedings, a notice was served upon the plaintiff but he refused to accept the said notice, and therefore, the Estate Officer passed the order dated 18.01.1978 (Ex.-A3). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding on issue No.1 is erroneous and misreading of evidence on record. Therefore, it is submitted that the finding on issue No.1 as recorded by learned trial Court is erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial Court has also wrongly decided issue No. 2. It is submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to prove that plaintiff had spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/-for construction of shops and was further entitled for Rs. 5,000/-for mental agony and losses suffered by him. 8. It is submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to prove that plaintiff had spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/-for construction of shops and was further entitled for Rs. 5,000/-for mental agony and losses suffered by him. 8. Further, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly decided issue No. 4. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of the Act of 1971, the proceedings initiated under the Act cannot be questioned in a Civil Court. It is submitted that by virtue of Section 10 of Act of 1971, the order passed by Estate Officer is final and cannot be questioned in any suit, application or execution proceeding but the learned trial Court has erroneously held that the findings of the Estate Officer were not being challenged and the learned trial Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has also given wrong findings on issue No. 5 in as much as the learned trial Court has wrongly held that the suit is within limitation. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court may be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree. It is submitted that without following the due process of law, the defendants-appellants have demolished the suit shops, thereby the plaintiffs not only suffered monetary loss, but also suffered mental agony. The learned Presiding Officer after inspecting the site rightly came to the conclusion that the suit shops are not within the precincts of the railway premises and are situated over the land of Municipality, and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1971 are not attracted. The judgment & decree passed by the learned trial Court is based upon sound appreciation of evidence and, therefore, it was submitted that the present first appeal may be rejected. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The issue no. 1 is that whether the three shops, neighborhood of which has been mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint are situated outside the precincts of Railway Station, Kankroli or not. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The issue no. 1 is that whether the three shops, neighborhood of which has been mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint are situated outside the precincts of Railway Station, Kankroli or not. The burden to prove the said issue was on plaintiff. The plaintiff averred that the said suit shops were taken on rent by him from the Municipal Board, Rajsamand on 17.05.1975 and stated that in this respect an order dated 02.07.1977 (Ex.-1) was passed by the Municipal Board. I have perused the Ex-1 from which it is not clear whether the shops are situated over the land of the Municipal Board or not. I have also perused the submissions of D.W.-1 (Dharam Kumar Handa), who at the relevant point of time was working on the post of Chief Clerk in appellant-railway department. D.W.-1 in his statement has specifically stated that the shops in question area ad-measuring 25x3½ sq. ft. have been constructed by encroaching on the precincts of railway premises and the proceedings before the Estate Officer were initiated who passed an order which is Ex.-A3. It was also stated by him that in the said proceedings, a notice was served upon the plaintiff, but he did not appear before the appellant authority and thereafter, pursuant to the order (Ex.-A2) passed by the Estate Officer, the encroachments were removed whose panchnama is Ex.- A1. DW-1 also stated in his statement that while calculating encroachment, the land upto 200 feet from the main line is measured from both the sides. For ready reference, the statements of DW-1 are reproduced as follows:- 12. From a perusal of statements of DW-2 & DW-3, it is evident that both DW-2 Bhure Lal and DW-3 Vishnu Gopal have reiterated the same facts. I have also perused Ex.-A4 - map wherein the shops in question are shown to be constructed over the land of the Railways. The plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the shops in question are not within the precincts of railway premises. I have also perused Ex.-A4 - map wherein the shops in question are shown to be constructed over the land of the Railways. The plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the shops in question are not within the precincts of railway premises. Thus, in absence of any documentary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and on perusing Ex.-A4, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Court has wrongly decided the issue No.1 by holding that the shops in question are outside the precincts of railway premises, therefore, the finding on issue No.1 is quashed and set aside and the issue No.1 is decided in favour of defendants-appellants. 13. Issue No. 3 is whether the three shops have been demolished pursuant to the order passed by the Estate Officer while invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1971. The burden to prove the said issue was cast upon the defendants-appellants. Though the learned trial Court has decided the said issue in favour of the defendants-appellants, but while deciding issue no. 4 i.e. whether the orders passed by the Estate Officer can be challenged before the Civil Court, the learned trial Court has held that since the suit shops are not within the precincts of the railway premises and are situated over the land of the Municipal Board, it has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. 14. Since this Court has already held that the suit shops are situated within the precincts of the railway premises, the provisions of the Act of 1971 are applicable in the present case, and consequently, it is held that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit because as per Section 10 of the Act of 1971, the order of the Estate Officer passed under Section 5 attains finality. According to Section 9 of the Act of 1971, an appeal against the order passed by Estate Officer under Section 5 lies to the appellate officer. However, there is no provision under the said Act of 1971 which gives right to a party to file suit against order of Estate Officer. 15. I have also perused Ex.-A3 dated 18.01.1978 issued by the Estate Officer invoking provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1971. However, there is no provision under the said Act of 1971 which gives right to a party to file suit against order of Estate Officer. 15. I have also perused Ex.-A3 dated 18.01.1978 issued by the Estate Officer invoking provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1971. The Estate Officer has specifically recorded that the plaintiff-respondent has constructed shops in the precincts of Railway Station, Kankroli unauthorizedly and a notice regarding the unauthorized structure from the railway land and to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the said land to the Inspector of Works, Mavli Junction was issued. As per the averments in the suit, on 13.07.1981, the suit shops were demolished. Therefore, it is clear that after almost three years of serving of the notice upon the plaintiff informing that he is an encroacher over the land of the Railways and after providing of opportunity of hearing, the illegal construction was demolished on 13.07.1981. 16. Section 9(1) of the Act of 1971 provides as under :- "9. Appeals.—(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under [section 5 or section 5B] [or section 5C] or section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the district judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years standing as the district judge may designate in this behalf ...." 17. As per Section 9(1) of the Act of 1971, it is clear that an appeal lies from an order of Estate Officer made in respect of public premises under Section 5, 5B, 5C or 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public premises are situated. 18. In view of the discussion made above and after perusing the documents available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has wrongly held that the shops in question were not situated within the precincts of Railway premises and were situated over the land of Municipal Board and accordingly, the learned trial Court has also wrongly held that the provisions of Act of 1971 are not attracted in the present matter. The learned Trial Court has also wrongly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court has also wrongly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the findings of issue Nos.1 and 4 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Since the issues No. 2 is connected to issue No.1, the findings on the said issue is also quashed and set aside. 19. Accordingly, the present first appeal is allowed. 20. The impugned judgment and decree dated 27.01.1990 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rajsamand is quashed and set aside and the suit preferred by the plaintiff is rejected. 21. No order as to costs.