The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 does not offend Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution as it provides adequate protection to the rights of persons affected by orders passed under the Act.

D.Falshaw and Gurdev Singh JJ.

1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by Hart Kishan Dass and Smt. Shila Devi challenging notices issued under Sections 4(1) and 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (Central Act No. 32 of 1958).

2. The first of these notices was issued on the 26th of November, 1959, by the Military Estates Officer, Delhi Circle, to Messrs Mussadi Lal Hari Kisan Dass, Mussadi Lal Garden, Ambala Cantonment, stating that he was of the opinion that they were in unauthorised occupation of 119 square feet of public land on which they had encroached, and calling on them to show cause on or before the 10th of December, 1959, why they should not be evicted.

3. It appears that no steps were taken by anybody to show cause in response to this notice and the Military Estates Officers issued the second notice under Section 5(1) of the Act on the 18th of May 1960 ordering Messrs Mussadi Lal Hari Kishen Dass and all persons who might be in occupation of the encroached land to vacate it within forty-five days, failing which they will be liable to be evicted, by force if necessary. The present petition challenging the validity of these notices was filed on the 27th of June, 1960.

4. The peitioners case is that they are managers of an institution called "Dharamasala Mussadi Lal" which owns the garden known as "Mussadi Lal Gardens" and it was denied that there had been any encorachment on Government land. It was alleged that Hari Kishen Dass had not taken any action on the first notice under Section 4 as it did not concern him in his personal capacity, and Mussadi Lal had died more than twelve years before, and the notice was alleged to be illegal on the ground that at was not served on the proper persons, namely the managers of the Dharamsala. It was also objected that the notices were illegal as they had been issued by a person who had no local jurisdiction in the land in dispute, but this point has not been raised before us. Finally the validity of the Act as a whole was challenged on the ground that it offended against the principles of Arts. 19 and 14 of the Constitution.

5. As regards the first point, it is clear that the notices reached Hari Kishan Dass, who has in fact appended them, together with the plan which accompanied the original notice, along with the petition, and it appears to me a mere quibble that he did not think it necessary to take any steps by way of showing cause against the eviction on the ground that the notice did not concern him in his personal capacity.

As a matter of fact it is pointed out in the written statement filed by the Military Estate Officer that when a similar notice was served under the corresponding section of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act of 1950, (Central Act No. 27 of 1950) in the year 1955, an appeal against the order of the competent authority was filed under Section 5 of the Act and a copy of the memorandum of appeal has been appended to the written statement which shows that it was filed on the 4th of March, 1955 by Hari Kishan Dass for Mussadi Lal Hari Kishan Dass, owner of Mussadi Lal Garden, Ambala Cantonment. In the circumstances I cannot see anything wrong with the issuing of the impugned notices in the name of Messrs Mussadi Lal Hari Kishan Dass.

6. In attacking the Act as a whole as offending principles of the Constitution, the learned counsel for the petitioners naturally relied mainly on the fact that the earlier Act of 1950, which was repealed by the present Act, was declared to be ultra vires by this High Court as well as by the High Courts of Calcutta and, Allahabad. The decision of this Court, Satis Chander V/s. Delhi Improvement Trust etc., 59 Punj LR 621 : (AIR 1958 Punj 1), was the last of these decisions in point of time and the judgments of the Calcutta and Allahabad Courts have been discussed therein. It appears that the Act was held to be ultra vires by the Allahabad High Court on the groun