JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:—This is an appeal by special leave arising out of a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - hereinafter called the Code, initiated at the instance of respondent No. 1 (for brevity, hereinafter the respondent). The said respondent filed an application on the 29th July, 1975 against appellants 1 and 2 before the Magistrate alleging that there is a Hotel known as Suresh Maharashtra Tea & Cold Drinks & Eating House on the disputed land which was owned by and in occupation of the respondent. The appellants forcibly dispossessed him from the Hotel on the 5th July, 1975. The application under S. 145 was filed initially against appellants 1 and 2. But at the instance of appellant number 3 he was also subsequently joined as a party to the proceeding.

2. The Magistrate passed a preliminary order under S. 145 (1) of the Code on the 29th July, 1975 asking the parties to appear before him and put in their written statement. On the same date, however, he attached the disputed property under S. 146 (1) of the Code. The appellants put in their written statements on the 2nd August, 1975. There after the case was heard by the Magistrate from time to time.

3. The Maharashtra Vacant Land (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, 1975 - hereinafter called the Act, came into force replacing an Ordinance promulgated earlier. The Act was deemed to have come into force in the area where the disputed property is situated on the 11th November, 1975. It seems the Hotel was constructed and is situated on a piece of "vacant land" in an "urban area" within the meaning of the Act. The Act was passed to prohibit unauthorised occupation of vacant lands in the urban area of the State of Maharashtra and to provide for summary eviction of persons from such lands. The Competent Authority under the Act was empowered under S. 4 to evict persons from unauthorised occupation of vacant lands. Section 8 of the Act which provides for a Bar of jurisdication of Courts reads as follows:-

"No Courts shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit, prosecution or other proceedings in respect of the eviction of any person from any vacant land under this Act or in respect of any order made or to be made or any action taken or to be taken by the Competent Authority in exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act or to grant any stay or injunction in respect of such order or action. If any such suit or other proceedings in respect of eviction of any person from any vacant land is pending on the appointed date in any Court, it shall abate; and it shall be lawful for the Competent Authority to evict such person from unauthority to evict such person from unauthorised occupation of the vacant land under the provisions of this Act and to remove and forfeit any property from such land as provided in this Act."

4. The Magistrate in his order dated the 21st January, 1977 passed in the proceeding aforementioned took the view that in view of S. 8 of the Act, he ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the case, inasmuch as he will have to order eviction of the appellants from the disputed property if the case of the respondent was found to be true. The appellant filed a revision in the Bombay High Court from the said order of the Magistrate but failed. The High Court agreed with the view taken by the Magistrate and dismissed the revision. Hence this appeal.

5. In our opinion the Courts below have committed an error of law in applying the Bar of S. 8 to the present proceeding. Firstly in the context of the Act the Bar is not attracted to any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person from any vacant land started in relation to a dispute of possession between two private persons. The Bar is attracted if the suit of proceeding concerns the eviction of any person from any vacant land by the Competent Authority. In other words, no suit or proceeding for eviction can be entertained by any Court if th