- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri A. K. Goyal appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri K. K. Rai appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY these two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 4th March, 2004 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly in Misc. Appeal No. 90 of 1999, Pankaj Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Misc. Appeal No. 91 of 1999, Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, as well as the order dated 17th August, 1999 passed by District Judge, Bareilly transferring the appeals for disposal to the Court of 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly. Notices under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were issued to the petitioners consequent to which proceedings were initiated before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer passed orders directing for eviction of the petitioners on 29th June, 1999. The petitioners filed appeals against the said orders under Section 9 of the Act before the District Judge, Bareilly. The said appeals were registered as Public Premises Appeal No. 90 of 1991 and 91 of 1991 and proceeded for hearing. The appeals were proceeding in the Court of 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly for disposal. It appears that applications were filed by the petitioners in the year 2004 praying that the 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The said objection has been rejected by the 11th Additional District Judge, Bareilly by the impugned judgments dated 4th March, 2004 which have been challenged in the writ petitions. Sri A. K. Goyal, challenging the orders, contended that under Section 9 of the Act, appeal can be decided only by the District Judge or by Additional District Judge having 10 years standing as Additional District Judge. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1980 AIR 69, Bawa Gopal Singh v. Union of India and others.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders and contended that impugned orders have been passed by Additional District Judge who has more than 10 years standing as an judicial officer, hence there is no error in the orders passed by Additional District Judge. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.;