ORDER : In D.B. Special Appeals Writ Nos.590/2005, 649/2005, 739/2005, 828/2005 & 1014/2005:- 1. In the present litigation before us, there are five appeals arising out of the judgment dated 01.06.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge including the respective orders passed by the revenue authorities below, that apart there are two contempt petitions with regard to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SAW-590/2005 & 1014/2005. Since, the controversy/question raised herein is common, therefore, on the request of counsel for the parties, all the matters have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order. 2. So far as the appeals are concerned, the record reveals that under challenge in the appeals filed by the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as Union of India) is the judgment dated 01.06.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed by the Union of India challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities below-Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue dated 20.06.2001, 10.01.2003 & 19.08.2003 were dismissed. 3. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the land in dispute belongs to ‘Rajputana Lancers’ - State Land of erstwhile Jaipur since 1950 and the possession of the said land in dispute was handed over to the Ministry of Defence on 04.12.1950 and the entry with regard to the said Land was also made in Military Land Records/Register (hereinafter to be referred as ‘MLR’). A survey, thereafter, of the land in dispute was also conducted by the Union of India through their Local Officers i.e. Military Officers along with the Revenue Officer of the State of Rajasthan and upon thorough inspection they prepared the record on 25.10.1960, which depicts certain illegal encroachments over the land in dispute and it was also found that those lands belonged to village Khatipura measuring about 105 Bighas and 18 Biswas as well as Village Jagannath Pura measuring about 154 Bighas and 19 Biswas, thus the total disputed land comes to 260 Bighas & 17 Biswas. After inspection, since certain encroachments were found, the Estate Officer issued notices to the respondents/their predecessors (alleged encroachers) for their eviction under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1958 and thereafter when the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1971) came into force, again the notices were issued by the Estate Officer and ultimately the Estate Officer passed the order of eviction on 05.12.1972 as provided under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 against the unauthorized occupants i.e. alleged encroachers (certain respondents herein). The said order came to be challenged by the respondents before the Sub- Divisional Officer under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act of 1955’) and prayed therein to declare the order passed by the Estate Officer as null & void on the pretext that the Estate Officer has no right/jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction in the matter as according to the respondents the case falls under the provisions of the Act of 1955. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide its order dated 20.06.2001 decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, which was challenged by the Union of India before the Revenue Appellate Authority by filing the appeal which by its judgment dated 10.01.2003 dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the Union of India. The said order of the Revenue Appellate Authority again came to be challenged by the Union of India before the Board of Revenue by filing of Second Appeal which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 19.08.2003. 4. Thus, being aggrieved by all the three orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20.06.2001, the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 10.01.2003 and the Board of Revenue dated 19.08.2003, the Union of India approached the learned Single Judge of this Court by filing five separate writ petitions. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the counsels for the parties vide its common judgment dated 01.06.2005 dismissed all the writ petitions filed on behalf of the Union of India. In the background as stated above, the Union of India is before us in five separate special appeals assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.06.2005 as well as two contempt petitions arise out of orders passed in two of those appeals. 5. In the background as stated above, the Union of India is before us in five separate special appeals assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.06.2005 as well as two contempt petitions arise out of orders passed in two of those appeals. 5. Service upon all the respondents and their legal representatives has been effected through notices issued by this Court as well as through paper publication in the Daily Newspaper dated 15.02.2025. Copy of the said news paper has been taken on record vide order dated 17.02.2025. 6. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India assailing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as all the Revenue Courts below, firstly argued that all the revenue authorities below had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as there being lack of jurisdiction since the matter clearly falls under the Act of 1971 not under the Act of 1955. During the course of arguments, he put much emphasis upon the provisions of Section 5, 9, 10 and 15 of the Act of 1971, which provides for eviction of the unauthorized occupants, as well as filing of the appeal and states about attaining finality of the orders and also the bar of jurisdiction of the courts with regard to assailing the order of the Estate Officer. 7. For the purpose of minute scrutiny of the controversy raised herein, we consider it appropriate to have a look over the provisions of Sections 5, 9, 10 & 15 of the Act of 1971, thus the same are quoted as below :- Section 5 :- 5. 7. For the purpose of minute scrutiny of the controversy raised herein, we consider it appropriate to have a look over the provisions of Sections 5, 9, 10 & 15 of the Act of 1971, thus the same are quoted as below :- Section 5 :- 5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants.—[(1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer shall make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order but not later than fifteen days from the date of the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises: Provided that every order under this sub- section shall be made by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), as the case may be, of section 4.] (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction 3 [on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under sub- section (1), whichever is later,] the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf [may after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that person] from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. [Provided that if the estate officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that there exists any compelling reason which prevents the person from vacating the premises within fifteen days, the estate officer may grant another fifteen days from the date of expiry of the order under sub-section (1) to the person to vacate the premises.] Section 9 :- 9. Appeals.—(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under 3 [section 5 or section 5B] 4 [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. 2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred,— (a) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 5, [within twelve days] from the date of publication of the order under sub-section (1) of that section; *** (b) in the case of an appeal from an order [under section 5B or section 7, within twelve days] from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant; [and] [(c) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 5C, within twelve days from the date of such order:] [Provided that the appellate officer may entertain the appeal in exceptional cases after the expiry of the said period, if he is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that there was compelling reasons which prevented the person from filing the appeal in time.] (3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the estate officer, the appellate officer may stay the enforcement of that order for such period and on such conditions as he deems fit: [Provided that where the construction or erection of any building or other structure or fixture or execution of any other work was not completed on the day on which an order was made under section 5B for the demolition or removal of such building or other structure or fixture, the appellate officer shall not make any order for the stay of enforcement of such order, unless such security, as may be sufficient in the opinion of the appellate officer, has been given by the appellant for not proceeding with such construction, erection or work pending the disposal of the appeal.] [(4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible and every endeavour shall be made to dispose of the appeal finally within one month from the date of filing the appeal, after providing the parties an opportunity of being heard.] (5) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate officer. (6) For the purposes of this section, a presidency-town shall be deemed to be a district and the chief judge or the principal judge of the city civil court therein shall be deemed to be the district judge of the district. Section 10:- 10. (6) For the purposes of this section, a presidency-town shall be deemed to be a district and the chief judge or the principal judge of the city civil court therein shall be deemed to be the district judge of the district. Section 10:- 10. Finality of orders.—Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by an estate officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. Section 15:- [15. Bar of jurisdiction.—No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of— (a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, or (b) the removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal from any public premises under section 5A, or (c) the demolition of any building or other structure made, or ordered to be made, under section 5B, or [(cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises under section 5C, or] (d) the arrears of rent payable under sub- section (1) of section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2), or interest payable under sub-section (2A), of that section, or (e) the recovery of— (i) costs of removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal under section 5A, or (ii) expenses of demolition under section 5B, or (iii) costs awarded to the Central Government or statutory authority under sub-section (5) of section 9, or (iv) any portion of such rent, damages, costs of removal, expenses of demolition or costs awarded to the Central Government or the statutory authority.]. 8. 8. Learned Additional Solicitor General while making reference of the aforesaid provisions argued that the respondents ought to have approached under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 to the District Judge by filing the appeal against the order passed by the Estate officer which is the remedy provided under the Act of 1971 but instead of adopting proper course under the law they chose to approach the Revenue Court while Section 15 of the Act of 1971 clearly speaks about the bar of Jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts with regard to the orders passed under the Act of 1971 by the Estate Officer. 9. His further argument is that as per Section 16 (vii) of the Act of 1955 the land which is set apart for military encamping grounds is a Military land which has been handed over to the Ministry of Defence by the erstwhile Jaipur State, therefore, no suit in regard to that land shall be maintainable before the Revenue Court under the Act of 1955. 10. We consider it appropriate to quote Section 16 (vii) of the Act of 1955 which reads as under:- “(vii) land which, at the commencement of this Act or at any time thereafter, is set apart for military encamping grounds.” 11. He also argued that all the documents with regard to entry of the land in the MLR as well as the documents relating to handing over possession of the land in dispute and taking over the certificate as well as the copy of the notices issued by the Estate Officer and the orders passed by the Estate Officer were produced before the Revenue courts below but all the revenue authorities below failed to consider these documents to the effect that the land belongs to the Union of India, thus there was lack of jurisdiction for the revenue authorities to entertain the suit. He also argued that any judgment or decree passed by the Court other than the Court prescribed under the Act of 1971 shall be in nullity and therefore prayed for quashing of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the orders passed by all the Revenue Authorities below. 12. In support of the contentions, learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon certain judgments as referred below :- 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Anr. Vs. 12. In support of the contentions, learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon certain judgments as referred below :- 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Anr. Vs. S. Narasimhulu Naidu (dead) through legal representatives & Ors. reported in 2021 (20) SCC 321 , in para No.47, held as under:- “47.Apart from the fact that the transfer of title in favour of the Union is complete when the possession was delivered, but even thereafter, the military land register and general land register produced by the appellants show the possession of the appellants over such land. The military land register and general land register are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) containing the records of the acts of the sovereign authority i.e., the Union as well as official body. Still further, Section 114 of the Evidence Act grants presumption of correctness being an official act having been regularly performed. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that such records were not maintained properly, the official record containing entries of ownership and possession would carry the presumption of correctness. In view of the transfer of land on 10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession on 19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of possession thereof, it leads to the unequivocal finding that appellants are owners and in possession of the suit land.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Agro Foods Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2008 (7) SCC 748 in para No.17, held as under:- “17.All irregular or erroneous or even illegal orders cannot be held to be null and void as there is a fine distinction between the orders which are null and void and orders which are irregular, wrong or illegal. Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction, null, non est and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an authority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. (See:Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs. Chaman Paswan & Ors.1). However, exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity - it is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings.” 15. (See:Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs. Chaman Paswan & Ors.1). However, exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity - it is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Syed Qamarali reported in 1961 SC Online SC 9 :1967 SLR 228 inpara No.21, held as under:- “21.We therefore hold that the order of dismissal having been made in breach of a mandatory provision of the rules subject to which only the power of punishment under section 7 could be exercised, is totally invalid. The order of dismissal had therefore no legal existence and it was not necessary for the respondent to have the order set aside by a court. The defence of limitation which was based only on the contention that the order had to be set aside by a court before it became invalid must therefore be rejected.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Birbal & Ors. reported in 2006 (5) SCC 353 in para No.16, held as under:- “16. When a document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (d) through LR Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. reported in 2019 (3) SCC 191 in paras No.7 & 8, held as under:- “7. The law on the question of mutation in the revenue records pertaining to any land and what is its legal value while deciding the rights of the parties is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of this Court. 8. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni(Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni(Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591 ).” 18. In counter to the submissions made by learned Additional Solicitor General, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that it was only the Revenue Court which has jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to the lands as per the Act of 1955. They further argued that the land in dispute is recorded under the Khatedari of the respondents and the said land does not fall within the definition of Public Premises. They further argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly recorded a finding of fact that the provisions of the Act of 1971 are not applicable with regard to the land in dispute. They further argued that the Union of India has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction under the Act of 1971 and there was no need to file appeal under the Act of 1971. They further argued that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the revenue courts below in favour of the respondents and the same are not required to be disturbed by this Court. They further argued that the Union of India by using their arbitrary powers has forcefully taken the possession of the land in dispute from the respondents and they have rightly prayed to the Revenue Courts with regard to their legal rights and lastly prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by Union of India. 19. We have heard the respective arguments of both the sides and carefully examined the material on record. 20. The sole crux of the arguments/controversy raised before us appears to be as to whether the Revenue Courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit with regard to a land which belongs to the Ministry of Defence initiating the proceedings by the Union of India through Estate Officer for eviction under the Act of 1971 when remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Estate Officer is available under the Act of 1971. 21. 21. Upon close analysis of the relevant provisions, we are of the considered view that once the proceedings have been initiated under the Act of 1971, the remedy to challenge the order passed by the Estate Officer lies only under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 by way of appeal before the Appellate Officer i.e. the District Judge, who alone is the authority empowered to examine as to whether the order passed by the Estate Officer is correct. 22. Section 15 of the Act of 1971 speaks about the bar of jurisdiction and according to which no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of orders of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, therefore, in our considered view, all the Revenue Courts have committed serious illegality in entertaining the suit filed against the Union of India because the remedy lies only by filing of appeal before the learned District Judge against the orders passed by the Estate Officer. 23. On perusal of Section 10 of the Act of 1971 we find that every order made by the Estate Officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings and no injunction shall be granted by any Court. 24. According to Section 16 (vii) of the Act of 1955 no Khatedari rights shall accrue for the lands which at the commencement of the Act of 1955 or any time thereafter is set apart for Military encamping grounds. Admittedly, the land in dispute was handed over to the Ministry of Defence for the purpose of Military Establishment and the same was also recorded in the MLR, therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (supra) , we are of the considered opinion that all the Courts below have committed serious illegality in entertaining the suit proceedings and passing of the respective orders. 25. The argument of the respondents that the land in dispute is not covered under the definition of Section 2 of the Act of 1971 is of no substance because the land in dispute is covered under the definition of Public Premises as the land in dispute belongs to Central Government i.e. Ministry of Defence. 26. 25. The argument of the respondents that the land in dispute is not covered under the definition of Section 2 of the Act of 1971 is of no substance because the land in dispute is covered under the definition of Public Premises as the land in dispute belongs to Central Government i.e. Ministry of Defence. 26. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge in which it has been observed that certain grounds have been taken for the first time, this fact is not correct because the Union of India has taken objections from very beginning with regard to nature of the land that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction and the documents with regard to handing over the possession of the land in dispute were also filed by Union of India at the initial stage before the Revenue Court, therefore, in our considered view, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 27. In view of what has been discussed by us in detail above, we are of the considered view that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit where orders of eviction have been passed by the Estate Officer under the Act of 1971. Therefore, we allow these appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.06.2005 and the writ petitions filed on behalf of the Union of India are allowed as prayed therein and all the orders passed by the respective revenue authority below-Board of Revenue dt.19.08.2003, Revenue Appellate Authority dt.10.01.2003 and Sub-Divisional Officer dt.20.06.2001 are hereby quashed and set aside. In D.B. Civil Contempt Petition Nos.61/2007 & 62/2007:- In view of the detailed judgment passed in above appeals, these contempt petitions stand disposed of accordingly.