HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.8, HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR:JJ WRIT APPEAL N0. 52 OF 2009 Appellant Petitioner Reseondents Vs 1. 2. 3. 4. Ghana Ram Tlwari, aged about 62 years, Son of Late Shri Laxminarayan Tiwari, Retired Accountant, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, Resident of Chainpur Road Pandariya, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through ; The Secretary, General Administration Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) The Colleotor, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pandariya, District Kabindham (CG) Janpad Panohayat, Pandariya, through the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG) B^- Present: Shri PKC Tiwari, learned Sr. Advocate w'th Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.4. ORAL JUDGMENT (4th December, 2009) PerDhirendra Mishra. J This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 9* February, 2009 passed in W.P.(c) No.820/09, whereby the petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed. 02. Thfe appellant retired as Accountant of Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya on 31.12.2003 while under suspension, after attaining the age of 58 years. The Janpad Panchayat vide its resolution dated 15.11.2007 resolved to get te house in occupatiQn of the appellant vacated, and forwarded the copy of the resolution to Sub Divisional Officer, Pandariya. The Sub Divisional Officer vide its notice dated 1 1.12.2007 sought for explanation from the appeltant. In his reply dated 13.12.2007, the appellant denied the title of Janpad Panchayat over the disputed accommodation and stated that before 35 years, the accommodation was in a dilapidated condition and he is residing in the said accommodation after constructing the same on his own expenses since last 35 years. He is also paying tax of the house, electricity and water charges. In another reply dated 17.12.2007, the appellant reiterating his earlier reply also stated that after retirement, his retiral dues have not been paid and therefore, he does not have any alternative accommodation for his family, and requested not to evict till retiral dues are-disbursed to him. However, the S.D.O. vide order dated 16.5.2008 passed an order of eviction and directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the disputed accommodation within 15 daysto Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya. The appeal preferred by the appeilant has been further dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 20 January, 2009. The appellant, thereafter, filed a writ petition against the aforesaid orders and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order with an observation that the question raised in the writ petition is a disputed question of fact between the Janpad Panchayat and the appellant, and the same cannot be decided by the Court in writ jurisdiction. However, liberty has been reserved to the appellant to approach the Civil Court for redressat of his grievances. It has been further observed that in the event. the petitioner approaches the competent jurisdictional Civil Court; he shall not be dispossessed from the property in dispute for a period of one month from the date of this order. 03. Shri PKC Tiwari, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the appellant, vehemently argued that in reply to the notice issued by the competent authority-S.D.O, the appellant had disputed the ctaim of the Janpad Panchayat that the Janpad Panchayat is owner of the said property. It was categoricalty stated that the appellant had constructed the house before 35 yeare on Aabadi land and since then he is residing in the said house after paying necessary tax, electricity & water charges etc. He had also submitted the receipts to establish the above fact. In appeal, he has filed a document being a list of the properties, which were transferred to Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli by the then Janpad Sabha and the property in question is not included in the said list. 04. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State, and Shri Pankaj Shrivastava.-leamed counsel for the respondent No.4, submitted that fte petitioner was placed under suspension on certain charges by the Janpad Panchayat. One of the charges i.e. Charge No.4 relates to not handing over the records perteining to movable and immovable properties of the Janpad Panchayat. The Enquiry OfRcer in its enquiry report has found // € "it "^, l^i ^i -L '""^i i^ \ A. .3? ff ?*<'a""3y.^ &3 that the above charge is proved as the appellant did not controvert the same. After receiving the above two replies by the appellant to the show cause notices, the S.D.O. commenced eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The appeHant participated in the eviction proceedings, however, he did not file his reply despite he was afforded ample opportunities for the same. The appellant, in his reply dated 17.12.2007, has admitted ownership of the Janpad Panchayat over the disputed property. The documents with respect to the disputed property could not be produced as the same have been kept by the appellant with himself. However, from perusal of the documents filed by respondent No.4 in his counter affidavit in the writ appeal, it would be evident Ihat the Memos were issued for the rent of the disputed accommodation to the appellant way back in the year 1988 and onwards. However, other documents could not be produced as the appellant himself was custodian of those documents while he was working as Accountant and he did not hand over charge ofthe same to his successor. 05. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, pleadings of the respective parties and the documents filed by them including the counter affidavit and'the documents annexed therewith filed by respondent No.4 in the writ appeal. 06. Indisputably, in the two replies filed by the appeliant to the show cause notices by the S.D.O., the appellant has admitted that the house in question was in a dilapidated condition before 35 years; he constructed the same by his own funds and is residing in the said house since last 35 years. He has also filed receipts for the year 2006 onwards of payment of tax, electricity & water charges. Inreply dated 17.12.2007, he has acknowledged ownership of the Janpad Panchayat over the disputed property and has prayed for time to vacate the house till his retiral dues are settled. The original records of S.D.O.-the competent authority, and the appellate authority, were also produced by the respondents for our perusal. From perusal of the Memo of Appeal filed by the appellant before the Additional Collector, it is clear that the disputed land with house was given by the Gram Panchayat to the appellant for residential purposes. Thus, considering the overall facts available pn record, we are of the opinion that dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition reserving liberty to institute an appropriate civil suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court to establish his title, is just and proper and the same does not call for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed._„_ il -- Sd/- ,,_.. Sd/- I |! IU<. CHANItRAKAR. Dhirendra Mishra " Judge Judge