1. Original plaintiff-petitioner Kamal Singh died during the pendency of this petition and hence the names of his legal representatives have been substituted as petitioners.

2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 9.9.2005 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 17/200S by the District Judge, Chhatarpur, whereby he has dismissed the plaintiff's appeal confirming the order of rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction as passed by the trial Court.

3. The case of plaintiff Kamal Singh in his suit before the trial Court is that the premises in question (land, house and well) belonged to the erstwhile Maharaja Bhawani Singh of Chhatarpur who, on being pleased with the services rendered by his parents, gifted the same to him by a gift deed dated 12.7.1946. According to Kamal Singh, on 1.3.1958 he joined the services of the State Forest Department and was posted at Chhatarpur on 24.11.1976 whereupon respondent No.6, without his request, allotted the premises to him and started deducting its rent from salary. Kamal Singh has also averred that he even filed an appeal on 25.8.1978 against the deduction of rent but to no avail and the respondents continued to deduct the rent upto 1.10.1999 though he retired from service on 30.11.1995. According to Kamal Singh, respondent No.5, the Sub-Divisional Officer served him with a show cause notice dated 5.12.1995 under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (in short, "the Act") in Revenue Case No.54-B /21/9900 to which he replied and sought documents. Thereafter, respondent No.5 by order dated 10.2.2000 held that the occupation of the premises by him was unauthorized and directed him to immediately vacate the same. In passing the eviction order respondent No.5 acted as competent authority under the Act. Aggrieved with the order, Kamal Singh filed the suit from which this petition arises .claiming the relief of permanent injunction and declaration that the order dated 10.2.2000 is void and without jurisdiction. He also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction.

4. The respondents have averred that the premises belongs to the State Government and is maintained by it. According to the respondents, Kamal Singh, after his posting at Chhatarpur in the year 1976, applied for the allotment of the premises on rent but as it was not vacant the same could not be allotted to him. Kamal Singh thereafter again applied for the allotment of the premises by filing applications dated 7.11.1977 and 29.6.1978 pursuant to which it was allotted to him by order dated 3.8.1978 and after allotment Kamal Singh, on his own, continued to deposit the rent upto September 1999. The respondents also took the plea that the suit of Kamal Singh was not maintainable and the order, having been passed by a competent authority, no injunction can be granted against it in view of the bar under section 10 of the Act.

5. The trial Court rejected the application of Kamal Singh for grant of temporary injunction against which he filed an appeal which too was dismissed by the impugned order. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court agreed with the finding of respondent No.5 that Kamal Singh was an unauthorized occupant of the premises as the same was allotted to him by the Forest Department on his request after he was posted at Chhatarpur. Both the Courts have also found the document of gift-deed relied upon by Kamal Singh as unreliable and held that no injunction can be granted against the order dated 10.2.2000 passed by respondent No.5 who was the competent authority under the Act.

6. The Act provides for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and section 10 excludes the jurisdiction of civil Courts with regard to every order made by a competent authority under the Act. It reads as under :

"10. Finality of orders. -- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order m