( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of C. Ws. 127/67 and 331-D/66. The points involved in both the petitions are the same and they have been argued together. For purposes of this order, facts in C. W. 127/67 are being referred to.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in C. W. 127/67 is an occupant of 93 square yards of land situated at Motia Khan since prior to 1950. This land is Government land. The petitioner paid damages for his occupation of this land at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per month per hundred square yards. On August 7, 1965 the petitioner received a notice from the Estate Officer under subsection (2) of Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, hereafter called "the Act" demanding a sum of Rs. 837. 12 in respect of his occupation of this land for the period with effect from April 1, 1963 to March 31. 1965 at the rate of Rs. 37-50 per hundred square yards i. e. Rs. 34. 88 for 93 square yards. The petitioner was required to show cause on or before September 23. 1965 why an order requiring this amount to be paid should not be made. In answer the petitioner submitted his objections. On September 23: 1965 and October 27, 1965 the petitioner himself attended the hearings of these objections before the Estate Officer. On October 27, 1965 the case was adjourned to December, 31 , 1965. According to the allegation in the petition, the petitioner fell ill on this date and sent his son to get an adjournment but the Estate Officer did not allow any adjournment and passed the ex parte order dated December 31. 1965 directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 837. 12 from the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. By order dated November 9, 1966 this appeal was dismissed. The learned District Judge found that the petitioner was absent on December 31, 1965. in spite of full knowledge of the proceedings when the order for recovery was made by the Estate Officer and, therefore,. the ex parte order was justified and that the assessment of damages at the rate of Rs. 37. 50 per hundred square yards was perfectly in order as the locality where the land was situated was highly commercialised. The petitioner has assailed the notice dated August 7, 1965 issued by the Estate Officer as well as the order of assessment dated December 31, 1965 passed by him as also the order of the learned District Judge dated November 9. 1966 on grounds that the order was without jurisdiction and a nullity in law and was vitiated as no hearing had been allowed to the petitioner

( 3 ) IN the return filed in opposition, the averments made were denied and it was urged that the petitioner being a trespasser, in so far as he was to pay damages only in respect of the land, had no locus standi to file this petition.

( 4 ) IT will be appropriate first to consider the preliminary objection urged on behalf of the respondent before taking up the merits of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that. the. petitioner was being charged damages only in respect of the land and as such he had no right qua the land and had, therefore, no locus standi to file this petition. I see no merits in this objection. The subject-matter of this petition is not the right of the petitioner to remain in occupation of the land but the act of the respondent in enforcing payment of damages at the rate not recoverable from him according to the petitioner. By the impugned orders the occupation of land by the petitioner is in no way sought to be disturbed. The order of the Estate Officer which has been affirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge has simply directed recovery of a certain amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue which the petitioner says is not legally recoverable from him. The threatened recovery in the circumstances constitutes a threat to the property of the petitioner and as such entitles him to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution. The objection that the petitioner has no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document