Madhya Pradesh High Court
Punyadeo Singh vs The State Officer on 5 September, 2014
W.A.NO.926/2011
05/09//2014
Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the
respondents.
In this appeal filed under Section 2(1) of M.P.Uchcha Nyayalay(Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenge is made to an order dated 06-05-11, passed by the writ court in W.P.No.2612/2003.
The appellant was found to be unauthorized occupant of the public premises and therefore, under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, proceedings were initiated before the Estate Officer who directed for removal of the appellant from the premises on account of the appellant being found to be an unauthorized occupant. The appeal filed before the District Judge was also rejected and the writ petition filed was also dismissed by the writ court. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the three authorities, this writ appeal has been filed. One of the ground canvassed in the writ appeal is that under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, it is the District Judge who is a persona designata to hear the appeal and as the appeal has been heard by the Additional District Judge, it is said that the order of the appellate authority is unsustainable. This question has already been considered and similar ground rejected by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Jinda Ram Vs. Union of India, 1992(2) MPLJ 221 and the matter has been dealt with in the following manner :
"8. In this connection, it may be mentioned that designating any authority by office is as against a designating individually. A persona designata is a person who is appointed out or described as an individual, as class, or as filling a particular character(see Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, 4th Edn. P.253). Therefore, in the present case, the Appellate Authority is not a persona designata, i.e. individual, but it is designated by office and any occupant to that office can function as an Appellate Authority. Reference may also be made in this connection to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukri Gopalan Vs. C.P.Aboobacker, AIR 1995 SC 2272, wherein, it has been observed:
" The appellate authorities as constituted under section 18 being the District Judges they constituted a class and cannot be considered to be persona desingata. The appellate authority functions as a Court."
Thus any order passed by the District Court, the revision can be entertained by the High Court. Likewise, revision against any order passed by the appellate authority, i.e. District Judge under the Act of 1971 can be entertained by the High Court as it is Court subordinate to High Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the distinction which the learned Single Judge has tried to make is not of any substantial nature."
In view of the above, the ground in this regard canvassed cannot be accepted. As far as merit of the case is concerned,concurrent orders have been passed by the two authorities and the writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.
Accordingly, finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) ( A.K.SHARMA )
JUDGE JUDGE
hsp