JUDGMENT

1. The matter pertains to the year 1997, and thus, listed under the category “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

1.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that :-

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the orders dated 5.11.1996 and 5.2.1997 (Annexs.9 and 12 respectively) be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 illegal and be quashed;

(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the consequential proceedings taken by the respondent No.3 be also declared illegal and be quashed and the respondent No.3 may be directed to restore the possession of the properties of the petitioners taken over on 10.2.1997 and exemplary compensation be awarded to the petitioners for the unauthorised act of respondent No.3 and personal liability be fixed of the officer who has passed the order for paying such compensation.

(iv) any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(v) costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel of the petitioners, are that in the year 1988, the respondents no.7 & 8 purchased a land from the respondent no.4 vide a registered sale deed dated 14.10.1988; whereafter, the respondents no.7 & 8 started construction of the shops over some part of the land. The petitioners purchased certain properties, as mentioned in the respective Schedule A, from the respondents no.7 & 8 by sale deed/agreement to sell.

2.1. The petitioners received a notice dated 24.10.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1964’) by the Estate Officer (SDO), Rajgarh, seeking eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question, because originally, the land was allotted for public purposes, but the land in question in an unauthorized manner, was let out on rent to certain persons.

2.2. The petitioners raised preliminary objections before the respondent no.3-Estate Officer (SDO), Rajgarh on 04.11.1996, whereafter, the Estate Officer vide the impugned order 05.11.1996 rejected the preliminary objections of the petitioners, while holding that the petitioners were unauthorized occupants over the property in questions and directed their eviction within a period of 30 days thereafter.

2.3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 05.11.1996, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Churu; the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh vide the impugned order dated 05.02.1997.

2.4. Thereafter, the respondent authorities without giving any reasonable time to the petitioners to vacate the respective premises, took possession of the property on 10.02.1997.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the determination of the question regarding title over the property cannot be made by the executive fiat in the proceeding under the Act of 1964, rather the same can only be determined by a competent Civil Court.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below has committed gave error of law, in holding that the Act of 1964 was applicable in the present case, because there was no material placed on record to show that the land in question was vested in the State Government.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that after the notice issued by the Estate Officer on 24.10.1996 to the petitioners, first date of hearing was on 04.11.1996, which clearly shows that no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the pet