r" ~T an^i qii R;-ti«h 'rraT 3?K?T ^RRT 'Srcf ^|t|K1.4, 8lTi1y'|(o, fq<?f|^y <(WCTI (0*l|th "^200 sn^?T Tra^? ('j'iF^'Kt.'f) S«]]<iTflfel 3I1^T SB : HON'BLE SHRI JUST^CE DHIRENDRA MISHRA W.P. (227) PETITIONBR Versu^ 8.4.2008 Ms. 'SharmUa Singhaij The petitioner by thiq Constitution of India h; 28.2.2008 (Annexm-e P/5| No.06/2007 whereby ' the; (Baikuntpur) has dismisse^ Section 9 of the PubUc Pil <ft1<(f?T<ft*T 'RR^ff ^f 1^T^ <Fq+$f< ^TSiRlH 311^1 N0.2061/2008 Am.it Ktunar Saha, S/o Sliri Bhola Saha, Aged about K2 years, R/o Welfare Colony, Khongapani, TahsU- Manendragarh, Distiict-Koria (CG) Manager, West Jhagrakhand CoUiery, S.E. C.L. Jhaerakhand ColUew Tahsil - Maaendragarh, Distiict-Koria (CG) counsel for the petitioner. petition under Article 227 of the is unpugned the order dated ) passed in Misc. . Civil Appeal learned District Judge, Koria the appeal of the petitioner nnder smises (Eviction of Unauthorised __.A_— ww^ ^br —FS/197—3/2008 -^t0,000. T ^ST rf<|t||d<<, ®Tllyi6,facll-M^ ^nwn a>*ii<»» •^flOO sn^r •vs^; (l°i^ai<tf) snt?r w ftsTO OTT 31)^1 ai*i •SCTwgSta sn^i -2- '*wtci<i)-i t<w<'if 4 fe%t<F»i«;i< ^sifiiHaiTi^r Occupaiitsj, 1971 (for brevity) order of the Estate Ofilcer dat the Act, 1971'} and affinned Uie ;d 11.7:-2007 (Annexure P/3). The facts, in nutshell, application (Annexure P/l) agamst the petitioner herein| Ltnauthorizedlv occupved belonging to the owner of petitioners submitted his rep| the Estate Officer vide proceedtngs were drawn a^ due to his absence despite respondent's witnesses, fiv^ Subsequenfly, fhe petitioner The Estate Officer aUowed thi the Act, 1971 of the dated 11.7.2007 (Annexm-e others, who were in du'ectmg them. to hand o1 preniises by 28.7.2007 to the ^re that tlie respondent filed an rfnder Section 5 of the Act, 1971 alteging that the petitioner has disputed public premises respondent^ company. The )ty to the above appUcation before P/2. Thereafter, ex-parte the petitioner on 21.5.2007 and ex-parte evidence of fhe in number, were recorded. [participated in. the proceedings. application mider Section 5 of and passed eviction order against the petitioner and all of the public premises, ^er vacant possession of the trespondent. t|he fhe Anndxure sajnst noltice resDonHent PV3} possepsion mwftT sBfrT ij!!"iici4, n»njs»m—FS/1<)7—3/2008 —40,000. T T 3n^v •aef l<-ii<=h w an^i sii'iiqi 'S^ '^WMi{, W^\W , fsldiy^ *ll*«llg,^j<^-"-------------"--^F^200 an^?T 'TRF ('j<:i(3ai<tcf) t?T^[?n1;T 'ITR^if ^f 'feT^ <faf^f< ^i'affiinan^r The appeal prefen-e4 by the petitioner was also dismissed by tlie leamed ipisti'ict Judge by the mipugned order dated 28.2.2008 (Ann^xure P/5). Leamed counsel for (±ie petitioner submits that the notice under Section 4 of the Act, 1971 issued to the petitioner has not been ^erved in accordance with fhe procedure prescribed unde|- ffaat section; bofh the Coiirts below have overlooked tl^ deposited the bUl/charges SECL, who issued receipt ii^ argued fhat the notice und fact that the petitioner had af electricitv' and water with the that regard; there is no evidence that the respondent is own^r of fhe premises 'm. dispute and the petitioner is an unauth^rized occupaat as no dociim.ent has been filed bv fhe respoittdent m this regard. It is further er Section 4(1) of the Act, 1971 does not m.ention the descri^tion of the pubUc premises. I have heard leanied] perused the orders passed ^ raised by the petitioner m coiinsel for the petitioner and the Conrts below. Leamed District Judje considering all the objections ic instant petition, has dismissed the appeal with the observajtions that (i) so far as UTegularity •msfa ?l*r HifiRBi. CTawm—FS/i97—3/2008 —40,000. + ^SSIS'Sy ,rf^-<' •^ •^-Mf .^y ^s^y' an^r w R-ii* wr sn^si *w* ^"^ •<ii<ii<n'4, Bxil^'Ko, fqyiy^ HWW %*ir«> -R^200 sn^ff 'tra^ ('jqFai'^T) TOiIWdtel SII^I ^ siimmDns regarding semce of site of fhe preniises; is the petitioner fhat any the above iiTegulanty, (iij petitioner on 15.5.1997 (iiij the petitioner was evidence of the respond thereafter, the petitioner filed his written submiss opportnnity of cross-< whose statements were declined to cross-examine evidence. In these uncontroverted evidence held fhat tliere was no Ule! passed by the Estate appeal. Offic^r Froiii perusal of fee Section 4 of the Act, 197|1 observed that the disputeijl described in the said notic4. passed by the Estate Ofiic^r +l<<ft'l<il'( IIHcit ^f fe%)'<f<ll<$K i? affipT sii^r by afiixture on the apparent ~it has not been shown bv tice has been caused to him by flie laiid rent produced by (he to Konark Photo Studio; and ex-parte on 21.5.2007 and int's witnesses were recorded, tpeared on subsequent dates and ilon, he was also afforded an tfae respondent's witnesses ^already recorded, however, he and also did not adduce anv relying upon the by the respondent, it was :alit\.' and uregularity in fhe order which catls for m.terference tn condserned prej|ud relfctes procfseded examtnui tbem circtunstances, adduced |notice under sub-section 9(1) of issued .to the petitioner, it is 1 premises has been adequately After Roinp through the orders :, which has been subsequentiy e f f, VSRVss.i— [.'S/l')7—3/2008—40,000. T .-^>" ..se-;-^ ^f" 21 ^~y ^f" sn^iw h-ii'* WI SK^FI sniif ^, E; ^ 'y 7^'<fl'41d<<, ®ll1'M41(o, fs|<11'Llll,< 45; <(IWIT ^HleR •Wt,200 sn^r ''ra^ (I'll^iyi) wiw^iter aii^i ^ conflrm.ed bv the leamed D by the petitioner, I aia of fh^ infirmity or jurisdictional below, which may occasion to fhe parties, which jurisdiction under Article 2 Accordingly the petition disniissed at the adralssion wantants beti; *wf<-l<il'< 1W<'if tf ftIZ><f"lt!tl< ^? sifiiiT sn^r istrict Judge tn appeal preferred opuiion that fhere is no Ulegality, error conimitted by fhe Coiirts "ailure ofjustice or grave injustice uiterference tn exercise of '27 of the Constitution of India. devoid of substance is hereby btage itsel£ ^——r Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Wlte gsWciZT, tl«14K<li»l—FS/197—3/2008—40,000.