Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj. & Ors vs Smt. Mad Kanwar & Anr on 17 November, 2016
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.361/2007
APPELLANTS :
1. The State of Rajasthan through Collector, Udaipur
2. Estate Officer, (Assistant Commissioner),
Devasthan Department, Udaipur
3. Thakur Shri Shyam Sunderji through Inspector,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan
Department, Udaipur
Versus
RESPONDENTS :
1. Smt. Mad Kanwar W/o Late Shri Panney Singh
2. Smt. Krishna Kumari W/o Shri Keshvendra Singh;
both residents of Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (LRs of
late Shri Panney Singh)
Date of Judgment : 17.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR,J.
HON'BLE DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J.
None present for the appellants
Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Rajat Dave, for the respondents
[2]
JUDGMENT
-------
BY THE COURT :
This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 09.01.2007 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2537/2005. Learned Single Bench by the order impugned while affirming the order passed by the appellate authority under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964') held that no disputed question about title and long possession on the property in question could have been examined under the Act of 1964 by the Estate Officer.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that an application was preferred before the Estate Officer by the Inspector of Devasthan Department under Section 4 of the Act of 1964 alleging unauthorized occupation on the premises of the Department of Devasthan. In return, the respondents came with the case that for the property in question, a patta was issued by formar Princely State of Mewar in favour of their predecessors and as such, the property is not a public premises. The Estate Office examined the objection on merits and negativated the same. Being aggrieved by the same, [3] an appeal was preferred before learned District Judge, Udaipur, which came to be allowed on 10.09.2004. Learned District Judge arrived at the conclusion that no question of title could have been decided under the Act of 1964. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the Estate Officer and the certificate granted as per Section 5 was set aside.
It is well-settled that under the Act of 1964, an unauthorized occupant on public premises can be evicted, but if there is any dispute about title supported by cogent evidence to arrive at the conclusion that prima facie such dispute exists, then it is not open for the Estate Officer to examine the same. Such an issue is required to be settled by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
In view of it, we do not find any just reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Bench. The appeal, as such, is having no force. Hence, dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Pramod