Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1675

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Basanti & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8465/2022
Decided On : 13-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
S.P. Sharma and Kaushal Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant
Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Advocate, for the Respondents

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.

Headnote:
Public Premises - Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants - Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 - Section 2(b)(vii) - The court discussed the application of the Act of 1964 and the definition of 'public premises' as mentioned in Section 2(b)(vii) in the context of the premises in question. The court highlighted the Gazette Notification declaring the premises as the property of Devasthan Department and the admission of the petitioner No. 1, which influenced the decision of the Estate Officer and the appellate court in passing the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the premises claimed by the Devasthan Department. The Estate Officer and the appellate court passed orders for eviction based on the department's claim and the admission of petitioner No. 1.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the premises in question belonged to the Devasthan Department based on the Gazette Notification and the admission of petitioner No. 1, and upheld the orders for eviction.
Issues: Dispute over the ownership of the premises, application of the Act of 1964, and the definition of 'public premises'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Gazette Notification and the admission of petitioner No. 1 to determine the ownership of the premises and upheld the orders for eviction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders for eviction were upheld.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter to be referred as 'the appellate court'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The said appeal was filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the judgment dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Estate Officer, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Estate Officer'), whereby the application filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan through the Inspector, Devasthan Department has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Inspector, Devasthan Department filed an application before the Estate Officer in the year 2007 under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1964') alleging that Institution Kabir Panthi Bagechi, Jodhpur (for short 'the premises in question' hereinafter) is the property of Devasthan Department and as such is a public premises and the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question since 2007.

3. It is stated that notices were issued to the petitioners on 21.06.2007 to vacate their possession from the premises in question but despite that the same has not been vacated by them. It is prayed that the unauthorised occupation be evicted from the premises in question and the petitioners be directed to pay rent to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month from 01.07.2007 with interest at the rate of 18%.

4. The application for eviction preferred on behalf of the Devasthan Department was contested by the petitioners and a reply to the said application was filed by them stating that the premises in question belongs to them and it is not a public premises. It is alleged that initially the premises in question was constructed by Mahant Prem Das and after his death in the year 1997, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, Jasraj Soni was anointed as Chela of Mahant Prem Das of the premises in question and since then the petitioners are in possession of the premises in question. In support of their claim, copies of electricity bills and water bills etc. were produced.

5. The Estate Officer on 23.09.2011 passed an order for evicting the petitioners from the premises in question. It appears that the petitioners were not provided any opportunity to produce their evidence and, therefore, an application was moved on their behalf, which was allowed and the petitioners were permitted to produce the evidence in support of their claim. An affidavit of petitioner No. 1 was filed on 29.11.2011 and she was cross-examined on 01.02.2012, however, the Estate Officer vide order dated 21.09.2012, without appreciating the said evidence, had ordered that as no new facts have been emerged from the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioners, the order of eviction dated 23.09.2011 is maintained.

6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.09.2012, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1964 before the appellate court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 12.09.2019 and the matter was remanded to the Estate Officer to decide the eviction application afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Pursuant to the said remand order, the matter was taken up by the Estate Officer. No one had appeared on behalf of the Devasthan Department before the Estate Officer and after hearing counsel for the petitioners ex parte, the Estate Officer passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2022 and ordered for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question.

7. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.01.2022, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate court, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.05.2022. Hence, this petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document