Back
VIJAY BISHNOI
Seth Jamnadas Lallubhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai, Through Trustee Tejas Bhai S/o Deepak Bhai Shroff – Appellant
Versus
Estate Officer, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Seth Jamnadas Lallubhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the petitioner-trust”.] being aggrieved with the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.1-Estate Officer, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent No.1-Estate Officer”.], whereby the application filed by the petitioner-trust was dismissed. The petitioner-trust has also challenged the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-District Judge, Rajsamand (Appellate Authority), [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent No.2-District Judge”.] , whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-trust has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1964”.], was preferred on behalf of the respondent No.3-Mandir Mandal Board Nathdwara, [For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the respondent No.3-board”.], claiming that the Shop Nos.8 an
High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 requires proving gross illegality or irregularity for intervention; cancellation of lease upheld based on violations of lease conditions.
Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act cannot resolve bona fide title disputes, which must be adjudicated in a civil court, ensuring respect for legal authority and due process.
The ownership of 'public premises' as defined in the Act of 1964 can be established based on official notifications and admissions by the parties involved.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 does not allow it to reappraise evidence or substitute its judgment for that of an inferior court unless there is a grave legal issue.
A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard t....
The eviction under the Public Premises Act was upheld as lawful, with sufficient notice and adherence to due process, and claims of bias against the Estate Officer were rejected.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners failed to establish their title over the land and were in unauthorized occupation, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
