R.F.NARIMAN,J. - (1.) The present case reveals a very sorry state of affairs. It appears that the ancestors of the appellant were Zamindars, and the appellants claim that they were in possession of the disputed land, which is roughly 5 acres, since 1930. On 25th July, 1974, proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Act were initiated against the appellants on the ground that the said land belonged to the State Government and the Gaon Sabha and that the appellants therefore ought to be evicted. After the appellants filed their reply in the aforesaid proceedings, by order dated 25th July, 1974, the proceedings were dropped and it was stated that proceedings under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act be initiated.
(2.) On 30th October, 1974, the State Government on behalf of the Union of India through the Collector Mirzapur filed a suit being Suit No. 1 of 1974-75 under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for recovery of possession and damages against the appellants. The appellants filed their written statement and contested the suit. During the pendency of the suit, a show cause notice dated 24th February, 1977, was issued by the Defence Estate Officer under the Public Premises Eviction Act under Section 4(1) thereof. On 11th March, 1977, the appellant replied to the said notice. On 17th March, 1977 the Defence Estate Officer passed an order under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Act. We have gone through the said order, which only states that the respondent was put on notice and their reply was received and considered. Without giving any reason as to why the reply was not acceptable, an order under Section 5(1) of the said Act was made to evict the appellants from the said premises. On 6th April, 1977 the State Government allowed the Suit No. 1 of 1974-75 to be dismissed in default.
(3.) Inasmuch as the proceeding under Public Premises Act then continued, a writ petition being filed by the appellant which was also disposed of, an appeal which was first dismissed on the ground of delay was then restored by the High Court by order dated 10th May, 1988. This appeal finally dismissed on 10th April, 1990. This order recorded : "Further it is clear from the evidence on record that the authorities have taken the possession of the land in question and has further allotted the same to some other ex-servicemen on 7.9.84 and the possession was also delivered to the allottees. On the basis of the discussions made above, as well as on the assessment of the evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that the appellant was rightly found in unauthorized occupation by the Defence Estate Officer over the land in question and I do not find any illegality in the proceeding initiated for the eviction of the appellant from the land in question. I am of the view that the present appeal, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed and the impugned order dated 17.3.77 passed by the Defence Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 deserves to be confirmed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 17.3.77 passed by the Defence Estate Officer, Bihar and Orissa Circle Danapur Cantonment Bihar under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is hereby confirmed.";