The central legal point established in the judgment is that the MPEB's remedy for eviction of an unauthorised occupant is exclusively through an application under the M. P. Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhiniyam, 1974, and the civil court's jurisdiction is barred in such cases.

( 1 ) IN these writ petitions Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB) is assailing the order P. 7 passed by the SDO Khandwa, East Nimar, on 25-5-99 and the order P. 8 passed by the Commissioner, Indore, Division Indore, on 6-12-2000 in appeal.

( 2 ) THE petitioner MPEB filed an application u/s. 5 of the M. P. Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') for eviction of respondent No. 1 as unauthorised occupant. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for addition as necessary party claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession and for that it was stated that civil suit 7-A/98 is pending before the first Civil Judge Class II, Khandwa. The learned SDO has held that it was not having jurisdiction as the unauthorised occupant, respondent No. 1, in each of the petition was not let out the premises by virtue of employment in MPEB. The MPEB has not given the possession to respondent No. 1. As such the provisions of the Adhiniyam are not attracted and the application was dismissed. It was also found by the SDO that MPEB had purchased the property on 30/04/1955 from M/s. Jassrup Baijnath Bahety and Sons Pvt. Ltd.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the order p. 7, MPEB preferred appeals before the Commissioner, Indore, Division Indore. The appeals have been dismissed as per order P. 8 which is identical in each of the petition. The order has been passed on 6-12-2000. The Addl. Commissioner, Indore, Division Indore, has held that the property in question was not in possession of MPEB from prior to purchase. After purchase also MPEB has not remained in possession of the property. In the opinion of the Commissioner, there is clearly 'title dispute' which should be resolved by the civil Court and matter is not such which should be tried under the Adhiniyam.

( 4 ) PETITIONER submits that M/s. Jassrup Baijnath Bahety and Sons Pvt. Ltd. owned Khandwa power house which included lands and building in Khandwa town. MPEB had purchased the said power house from M/s. Abdul Hussain Haji Jivaji M/s. Jassrup Baijnath Bahety and Sons Pvt. Ltd. The said licensee had surrendered the license and the same was revoked with their consent in the year 1954. M/s Jassrup Baijnath Bahety and Sons Pvt. Ltd. applied to the Board for purchase of some land and buildings belonging to Khandwa power house. The said Jassrup Baijnath Baheti floated a new company in the name of Nimar Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The agreement for sale of the land was negotiated by the said Nimar Corporation.

( 5 ) IT is further averred by the petitioner that the Nimar Industrial Corporation, respondent No. 2, filed a Civil Suit No. 2-A/61 for specific performance of the contract for sale of the land and buildings of the premises of old Khandwa power house which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, East Nimar Khandwa on 13-3-1963. It was held that possession of Nimar Industrial Corporation, respondent No. 2, is unauthorized and was not under the agreement. An appeal was preferred before the High Court of M. P. , F. A. No. 48/1963 which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 6-4-1973 as per judgment P. 2. An appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court which has been dismissed as per order P. 3 dated 7-12-1994.

( 6 ) THE respondent No. 2 had without the permission of the petitioner, given the said land on rent to several persons including the respondent No. 1. Petitioner called upon by a notice the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the premises occupied by them and also demanded damages under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. Petitioner has stated that petitioner is a Corporation controlled by the State Govt. established under the Central Act. Respondent No. 1 did not vacate the premises, hence, petitioner was required to file an application on 19-8-1998 u/s. 5 read with Section 7 of the Adhiniyam before the competent authority Khandwa. Application P. 5 was preferred. Objection P. 6 was filed before the competent authority