1. Heard Mr. RL Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, representing the respondents.

2. The original plaintiff, Panmati Devi (since deceased), filed Title Suit No. 23/1985 (later on renumbered as Title Suit No. 45/1999) in the court of learned Sadar Munsiff No. 1 at Dibrugarh for declaration that the plaintiff is in lawful occupation of the premises described in the schedule of the plaint and the defendants/ respondents are not competent to issue notice dated 26.07.1983 for eviction nor have they any right to evict the plaintiff from premises under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act,1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the notice No. NIL dated 26.07.1983 issued by the defendant no. 3 under Section 4 of the Act. The said Panmati Devi preferred this second appeal as the appellant and on her death her legal heirs were substituted by order dated 08.11.2017. However, in this judgment the plaintiff/ appellant shall mean Late Panmati Devi. The husband of the plaintiff/ appellant was a Mali (Gardener) in the Army Department at Panitola, Dinjan in the district of Dibrugarh. About 46 years back he occupied land measuring ‘180 x 150’ within Dibrugarh Cantonment Ward at Dibrugarh. The land was low lying land and after earth filling her husband constructed the residential houses and started residing thereon along with his family. Her husband died in the year 1980 leaving behind the original plaintiff in charge of his estate. The occupation of the said land was recognised by the State Government for which she paid revenue regularly. The defendant/respondent no. 2 on 26.07.1983 issued notice directing the plaintiff/ appellant to vacate the land and deliver khas possession within 30 days from the receipt of notice which was received on 28.07.1983. The notice was purportedly issued under Section 4 of the Act. The defendants/respondents acted in bad faith and the action initiated without any power being conferred under the said Act. The land originally belonged to the State Government which the Army (Military) claimed to have acquired in 1942 from the State Government and came under occupation of Military Engineering Service (MES), Jorhat and from it to NCC Group Headquarter, Dibrugarh, Assam. The plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal against the said notice under Section 9 of the Act before the District Judge, Dibrugarh which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 4/1983. Apprehending that the learned District Judge has only limited scope under the provision of the Act to do substantive justice in the appeal and likely to be disposed of any time, as such, she preferred the suit for declaration that she is in lawful occupation of the land and the defendants/respondents are not competent to issue the said notice under the Act. The cause of action for the suit arose on 26.07.1983, 28.08.1983 (expiry of 30 days from 26.07.1983), 13.09.1983 (institution of the appeal) and subsequent dates thereafter. On the basis of the said pleadings, the plaintiff/appellant sought for the reliefs stated here in above.

3. The defendants/respondents filed their joint written statement taking the plea that the suit is not maintainable as the same is barred under Section 10 of the Act inasmuch as, the order passed in the proceeding being final and binding the same cannot be called in question in any suit. The court has no jurisdiction as the same is barred under Section 15 of the Act. It is denied specifically that the defendant/respondent no. 2, the Estate Officer did not proceed in the manner as provided in the Act. The land being within the cantonment area, question of acquisition proceeding as alleged in the plaint is denied and further it is specifically denied that the plaintiff/appellant is in lawful occupation of the suit premises. It is admi