( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners praying for quashing of the order dated 25-9-1982 (Annexure VII) passed by respondent No. 4.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Gokulchand Gupta who died on 12-5-1981 during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No. 4 the appellate authority and were brought on record as such.

( 3 ) SHRI I. S. Rathore, Deputy Collector was appointed as competent authority for Rajgarh Biora and Khilchipur Tahsils by the Collector, Rajgarh under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) vide Notification dated 21-2-1975. Proceedings before Shri Rathore commenced on 28-3-1975. It is also not in dispute that by the subsequent Notification dated 17-7-1975 the Collector, Rajgarh appointed Shri S. P. Sonkia, Deputy Collector as the competent authority under the Adhiniyam for Narsinghgarh and Sarangpur Tahsils. However, Shri I. S. Rathore continued to be the competent authority for Rajgaarh and Khilchipur Tahsils vide Annexure II. Thereafter Shri L. C. Malviya, Deputy Collector was appointed as competent authority for Rajgarh and Khilchipur Tahsils vide Notification dated 2-1-1976 (Annexure III to the petition ). The petitioners have also filed certified copy of the proceedings before the competent authority as Annexure IV.

( 4 ) ON an application preferred by the Executive Engineer P. W. D. , Rajgarh (respondent No. 5) proceedings against the original petitioner Gokulchand Gupta were initiated for eviction from 'baggikhana' and 'bhandar' situated in Rajgarh and were said to be in an unauthorised possession of the said Gokulchand Gupta. The respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice under Section 4 of the Adhiniyam against Gokulchand Gupta on 28-3-1975. Gokulchand Gupta submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 17-41975 stating that the premises were not public premises and according to him he had purchased the same from the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Rajgarh vide registered sale deed dated 23-12-1971.

( 5 ) THE competent authority (respondent No. 3) on holding an inquiry came to the conclusion that the respondents have failed to prove that the premises in question were the public premises and held that the late Gokulchand Gupta was the owner of the properties in question. The order passed by the competent authority on 15-3-1976 is also filed as Annexure V to the petition.

( 6 ) THE State preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Rajgarh. The appeal memo is Annexure VI. As a result of amendment to the Adhiniyam the Commissioner (respondent 4) was appointed the appellate authority and as such the appeal stood transferred to him. Respondent No. 4 by his order dated 25-9-1982 (Annexure VII) held that initiation of proceedings before the competent authority was without jurisdiction and the matter was further remanded back to the competent authority for disposal in accordance with law. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

( 7 ) SHRI Chhazed, learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order dated 25-9-1982 (Annexure-VII) as per se illegal and that the finding arrived at by him is based on misreading of evidence and misconstruction of the law.

( 8 ) SHRI Solanki, Dy. Govt. Advocate has contended before us that the application dated 17-1-1975 preferred by respondent No. 5 was addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer and as such it was not presented before the competent authority. It is on this basis that he contends that the proceeding has been vitiated right from its inception and in this view of the matter the order passed by respondent No. 4 does not call for any interference.

( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel we are of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. We do not find any justification in taking the hypertechnical vie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document