1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4757/2001 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Madhopur & anr. Versus M/s.Shiv Narain Deep Chand Jain and another DATE OF ORDER --- March 26,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Indrajeet Singh, for the petitioners Mr.K.N.Sharma, for the respondent No.1 BY THE COURT (1) By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order of the Appellate Authority under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (in short `the Act of 1964'), dated 11.5.2001. (2) Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that on the application dated 2.9.1998 of the respondent No.1, rural godown was allotted to it vide order dated 24.9.1998 (Anx.1) for the period up to March, 2000. In the order dated 24.9.1998 (Anx.1), there was a stipulation that the respondent No.1 allottee could be evicted even earlier. It is stated in the writ petition that in the earlier proceedings pursuant to notice dated 16.12.1999, which culminated in favour of the respondent No.1 on 5.4.2000, some observations in favour of the petitioners were made. As per the observations made in the judgment dated 5.4.2000, the petitioners again initiated eviction proceedings on 5.5.2000 by issuing notice under the Act of 1964, against the respondent No.1 and the Estate Officer passed eviction order on 22.7.2000 whereby the respondent No.1 M/s.Shiv Narain Deep Chand Jain was declared unauthorised occupant from 1.4.2000 in respect of rural godown. Against the aforesaid eviction order 2 dated 22.7.2000, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal u/s 9 of the Act of 1964 before the Distt. Judge, Sikar, which on transfer, has been allowed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Srimadhopur vide order dated 11.5.2001 on the ground that the Estate Officer did not consider the provisions of Sec. 106 & 107 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Sec. 4 of the Act of 1964, according to which the respondent No.1 was entitled to show cause notice and further did not consider the fact that the premises in question were on rent with the respondent No.1 since 1994. (3) The respondent No.1 filed reply to the writ petition stating therein that for the first time in 1992 and further, from time to time, the said godown was allotted to the respondent No.1 on its application. Lastly, the rural godown was allotted to the respondent No.1 vide order dated 24.8.1998 (Anx.1) for the period up to March, 2000. (4) The main submission of counsel for the petitioners is that in case of non compliance of Sec. 4 and 5 of the Act of 1964, which has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity, the proper order is of remand and not of leaving the matter undecided by setting aside the order of the Estate Officer dated 22.7.2000. (5) Submission of counsel for the respondent No.1 is that not only there is non compliance of Sec. 4 and 5 of the Act of 1964 but there is violation of Sec.106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. (6) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submission of counsel for the parties. (7) In my view, in such type of cases, where reasonable opportunity as per Sec. 4 and 5 of the Act of 1964 was not given, the proper course for the Court is to remand the case with the further direction to decide the same in accordance with law. 3 (8) Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 11.5.2001 is modified to the extent of remand and the case is remanded back to the Estate Officer to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल