Revision lies against the order of District Judge under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, as the order is not final and revision is provided under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.

( 1 ) BY this order connected Civil Revision no. 437 of 1980 (Tikaram v. Union of India) is also disposed of as it arises out of the common appellate order of the District Judge under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, affirming the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act against the applicants.

( 2 ) APPLICANT Ayodhya Prasad and applicant Tikaram are brothers and in occupation of plots, total area 10 square meters, near Railway Quarter no. 273a-C and Railway Bungalow no. B-176 in Pachpedi, Jabalpur. The Assistant Engineer, Central Railway, Jabalpur by his notices dated 12-3-1980 asked the applicants to vacate their unauthorised occupation. The notices were not complied with. So the Divisional Engineer of the Central Railway, Jabalpur by his notices dated 20-5-1980 again asked the applicants to vacate the railway premises. Since these notices were also not complied with, the Divisional Manager (Works ). Central Railway, Jabalpur complained to the Estate Officer, Central Railway, Jabalpur about the unauthorised occupation of the public premises by the applicants and sought their eviction. The Estate Officer then served the applicants with cause notices dated 21/22-8-1980 under Section 4 (1) of the Act, asking them to show cause on or before 25-9-1980 as to why eviction order be not passed for vacation of public premises. Applicant Ayodhya Prasad received the notice on 29-8-1980 and applicant Tikaram also received the notice near about the same date. However, both of them failed to appear or show cause before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer passed the eviction orders against the applicants under Section 5 on 14-10-1980 after being satisfied that the applicants are in unauthorised occupation of Railway premises. The applicants were given 30 days' time to vacate the premises, otherwise they would be forcibly evicted. The applicants then preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeals nos. 37 and 38 of 1980 before the District Judge, Jabalpur, under Section 9 of the Act. By common order dated 12-3-1980. both the appeals have been dismissed by the District Judge, holding that the orders of the Estate Officer are in accordance with law and so affirmed the orders. Aggrieved by the Order these two revisions have been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 3 ) THE applicants have challenged the orders on the following grounds : (1) The applicants are illiterate persons but the show cause notices were served in English and they could not understand the contents thereof, and (2) the Estate Officer without holding any enquiry and in the absence of any material on record and even without drawing an order-sheet passed the eviction orders in contravention of Section 8, which provides the procedure to be followed. The non-applicants supported the orders and submitted that orders are perfectly legal and valid. An objection had also been raised that no revision lies against the order of District Judge who acts as a persona designata under Section 9 of the Act.

( 4 ) MAINTAINABILITY of these revisions are taken up first. Section 9 provides that an appeal lies from every order of the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act to an appellate Officer who shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public property are situate or such other Judicial Officer in that district of not less than two years' standing as District Judge may designate in this behalf. Section 10 gives finality to the orders of the Estate Officer or appellate Officer, which shall not he called into question in original suit, application or execution proceedings. A single Bench of this Court in Hargovind v. South Estate Railway, AIR 1966 Madh Pra 7, had held that District Judge acts as persona designata, the word 'application' in Section 10 is wide enough to cover an application for revision under Section 115 of the C. P. C. and hence revision is excluded. But