The court established that the principle of res judicata did not apply as the Revenue authorities did not finally decide any question. The court also upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, stating that it did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Narasimham, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the ureter dated the 16th March, 1966 passed by the Estate Officer purporting to act under the provisions of the Public Premise- (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1958 (32 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) holding that he had jurisdiction to take appropriate steps under that Act tor the eviction of the petitioners from plot No. 6046 in mahalla Ratan-pura of Chapra Town. The railwav authorities claimed the plot to be railway property, and hence applied to the Estate Officer appointed under the Act for taking necessary steps for the eviction of the petitioners who were alleged to be unauthorised occu-pantb of the same. The petitioners, however, objected to the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer to continue the proceeding for eviction on the ground that there was a previous proceeding before the Revenue authorities under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (Bihar Act XV of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Act), which was fought by the parties concerned up to the Court of the Commissioner of the Division. All the three Revenue authorities, viz.. the S.D.O.. the appellate authority, viz., the Collector, and the revisional authority, viz., the Commissioner, held that it was not a fit case for taking action under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, and that the appropriate course for the Railway administration was to bring a civil suit for that purpose. The S.D.O.s order (Annexure B) shows that he was not inclined to take action under the Bihar Act for the following reasons :-

-

"It will not be proper to decide the question of title in a summary proceeding under this Act. The parties may get the title decided by competent Civil Court."

On appeai also, the Collector endorsed this view (Annexure C) with the following observations (see paragraph 10):

"Under the circumstances, I find that the respondents (meaning the petitioners here) are in possession of the disputed land since 1946 by virtue of a lease from the Saran District board. There is no evidence to show that this land was in possession of the Railway Administration. In a summary proceeding like this in which complicated issue oJ title and possession are involved, it would not be fail to pass a summary order under the Bihai Land Encroachment Act especially when the District Board, whict is also a public body, is involved. In the circumstances, I agree with the learned lower court that this is not a fit case for decision under Bihar Land Encroachment Act. The appellants should seek their remedy in Civil Court."

When the matter was taken up in revision before the Commissioner, he observed as follows :-

- (Annexure D)

"I have carefully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the Railwav Administration, As 1 have said above, there is a good deal of force in the same, but I am reluctant to upset the findings of the learned Collector in this case. I am also inclined to the view that in a case like this, the remedy should be sought not through the Bihai Land Encroachment Act but through tht appropriate Civil Court."

2. Having thus iost the case in the three Revenue Courts the Railwav administration thought it advisable to proceed under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of evicting the petitioners, and Ihe Estate Officer decided the preliminary question of jurisdiction in favour of the Railway administration.

3. The writ petition was admitted on the 13th April 1966. and one of the most important grounds urged in the writ petition was that the decision of the Revenue authorities in the proceedings under the Bihar Ad would operate as res iudicata in the subsequent proceeding for eviction under the provisions of the Act. But. when the writ petition became ready for hearing, Mr. Basudeva Prasad for the petitioners relied on a very recent judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd.