The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient opportunity for hearing and distinguishes the application of different legal provisions in the context of illegal constructions on public premises.

( 1 ) PLEADINGS are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court.

( 2 ) HEARD counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 12. 4. 2001, directing the petitioners to remove the illegal constructions and structures from the public premises namely Government class B4, part of survey No. 183/735 situated at BC, Bazar, Meerut Cantt.

( 4 ) GENERAL Land Register Survey No. 183/735 shows land admeasuring about 41. 929 acres situated in the civil area of the Cantonment at Meerut is registered as a class B4 land under Rule 3 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rule, 1937. This land is situated towards south side of house No. 144-1. Sri Krishna Murari Lal son of Sri Jagdish Murari Lal was the alleged owner of property No. 144-1 which he sold to Smt. Harjeet Kaur. It is alleged that Smt. Harjeet Kaur had already applied for conversion of her old grant into free hold. As the petitioners had constructed some shops over the land forming part of Survey No. 183/735, a show cause notice under section 5a (2) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued to them on 16. 5. 2000, asking them to remove the said illegal structures or to show cause why it should not be removed. The petitioners filed their reply stating that they are the occupiers of the shops and the boundaries mentioned in the notice were incorrect and thus the proceedings be dropped. By the impugned order dated 12. 4. 2001, the Estate Officer held that the petitioners had encroached upon the public premises and have raised illegal construction and as such has directed demolition of the said constructions.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners or their counsel and thus the order is vitiated.

( 6 ) THERE is recital in the impugned order showing that the objection to the show cause was considered and the petitioners were heard. In the counter-affidavit it is alleged that the petitioners along with their counsel appeared before the Estate Officer on 27. 5. 2000 and sought adjournment which was granted and 3. 6. 2000 was fixed but the case could not be taken up on 3. 6. 2000, thus it was fixed for 17. 6. 2000 when the counsel for the petitioner again sought adjournment and it was fixed for 1. 7. 2000. On 1. 7. 2000, an adjournment application again was moved which was rejected and 6. 7. 2000 was fixed as last date for filing their evidence but no evidence was filed on behalf of the petitioners and as such 12. 7. 2000 was fixed but as it could not be taken up, it was fixed for 30. 8. 2000. Subsequently, when the matter was fixed for 8. 9. 2000 on the petitioners request, it was adjourned to 13. 9. 2000, when the petitioners filed their further objection again another opportunity for filing objection was granted and it was fixed for 4. 10. 2000 which was adjourned on the petitioners request and subsequently it was heard and orders were reserved on 12. 4. 2001 whereafter the impugned order was passed. A copy of the order sheet is also annexed. These averments have not been denied in the rejoinder-affidavit. Thus, in my opinion the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity and which they availed and therefore the contention cannot be sustained.

( 7 ) THE next contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that after issuing notice under Section 5a of the Act, another notice under Section 187 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 was served to the petitioners by the Cantonment Executive Officer on 14. 6. 2000, against which he has filed an appeal before the G. O. C. in Chief Central Command, Lucknow and no demolition can take place for awaiting the decision in the appeal. It is alleged that two parallel proceedings could not go on simultaneously.

( 8 ) TO consider this argument it would be necessary to examine Section 187 of the Cantonment act, 1924, which