( 1 ) PETITIONER was served with a notice under Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Badakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'adhiniyam'), specifying therein that the petitioner is in an unauthorised occupation of a public premises. It was specifically mentioned that the house No. 34/d is under the control of Public Works Department of the State Government. After issuance of show-cause notice, the petitioner has shown the cause and claimed that he is not in an unauthorised occupation of the premises. He raised a dispute and submitted that he is the owner of the property. He has submitted his evidence and, on examination of evidence the Competent Authortiy found that the Public Works Department has not been able to demonstrate its title over the disputed house and dropped the proceedings.

( 2 ) THE house was claimed to be the property under the control of Public Works Department. The petitioner had filed a sale deed dated 22-2-1958 to demonstrate that the disputed property was sold by one Mohd. Ulbaq to Gulabchand and Khushalchand, sons of Roop Chand Jain. The petitioner contended that he is the owner of the property. The Sub-Divisional Officer dropped the proceedings.

( 3 ) IT appears that the proceedings were initiated on the application of Public Works Department, which shows that the proceedings initiated were not proper. The proceedings were registered on the application of Public Works Department.

( 4 ) SECTION 4 of the Adhiniyam provides that if the competent authority is of the opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the competent authority shall issue a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause on the specified date why an order of eviction should not be made.

( 5 ) FROM perusal of order, Annexure P/4, it is apparent that the competent authority has not satisfied itself before issuing notice under Section 4 of the Adhiniyam. It has simply acted on the application of the Public Works Department.

( 6 ) RULES have been framed under the Adhiniyam, which are known as Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Niyam, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ). Rule 3 of the Rules provides Form of notices. On perusal of 'form A', it is clear when the competent authority has received information that a person is in unauthorised possession of the public premises specified in the Schedule, than a notice under Section 4 of the Adhiniyam is required to be issued to show cause why the order of eviction be not passed.

( 7 ) THE Sub-Divisional Officer, treating it as personal dispute between Public Works Department and petitioner, has dismissed the petition holding therein that Public Works Department has failed to prove that the premises is a public premises.

( 8 ) BE it (as it) may, on perusal of the language of Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, it is apparent that no order on the application has been passed. On bare reading of Sections 4 and 5 of the Adhiniyam it is clear that the show cause notice is issued why the order of eviction should not be made. Section 5 provides that if the competent authority is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the competent authority may make an order of eviction. Thus, Section 5 contemplates only one order, i. e. order of eviction. Dropping of the proceedings will not be an order under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam. On bare perusal of the language of Section 5 of the Adhiniyam it is clear that the order would mean the order of eviction.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no order has been passed, the appeal by the State under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam is not maintainable.

( 10 ) SECTION 9 of the Adhiniyam provides for an appeal from every order of the competent authority made in respect of any public premises under Section 5 or 7 to the appellate authority. Section 7 of the Adhiniyam relates to passing an order of