- (1.) These writ petitions are based on common questions of fact and law, accordingly, on the consent of the parties are being decided together. For determination the factual matrix of the matter is being noticed from Writ C No. 40360 of 2015 (Yogesh Agarwal vs. Estate Officer and 2 others). The first respondent-Estate Officer, Meerut Cantt. Meerut passed an order dated 6 July 2015 purportedly under Section 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Act 1971 directing demolition of unauthorized construction on the land at Bungalow No. 64 Chppel Street, Meerut Cantt. belonging to the Union of India. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Meerut under Section 9 of Act 1971, by order dated 14 July 2015 District Judge questioned the maintainability of the appeal under Section 9 against an order passed under Section 5A. Petitioner apprehending demolition has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the aforementioned orders. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General, Govt. of India assisted by Sri Krishna Agarwal would submit that against an order passed under Section 5A of the Act, 1971 there being no appeal provided, therefore, would urge that an appeal would not be maintainable. Section 5A being part of speedy redressal of matters contained therein, the legislature deliberately did not provide for appeal, whereas, appeal against orders passed under Section 5, 5B, 5C and 7 of the Act 1971 has been provided under Section 9; Section 5A being conspicuously absent, therefore, cannot be incorporated into Section 9 by a judicial order. Sri K.K. Arora and Sri Akhtar Ali, learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners would place reliance upon a Division Bench judgment and order rendered in Sri Sanjay Agarwal vs. Union of India and others, (Writ-C No. 14580 of 2012) decided on 26 March 2012 and in Sri Anil Maggu vs. Estate Officer Cantt. Board and another, (Writ-C No. 3464 of 2015) decided on 10 June 2015 to submit that an order passed under Section 5A would ultimately leave the petitioner remediless, therefore, would urge that the appeal would lie under Section 9.
(2.) The relevant portion of the order in Sanjay Agarwal's case is extracted:- Petitioner has contended before this Court that as against the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, reply was given and ultimately order was passed against the petitioner.
(3.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition having remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Act. We find from Section 9 of the said Act which provides that "An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under [Section 5 or Section 5-B [or Section 5-C]] or Section 7 to an Appellate Officer...................". Petitioner has no objection to go before the appellate authority but, with clarification, his apprehension is that, in case his appeal is dismissed as not being maintainable he has to face the difficulty, therefore, he has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. We find that if no order is passed in respect of immovable property, under Section 5-A of the said Act, it ultimately leave the order of demolition of unauthorized construction without any remedy. Having so, we are of the view that the appeal is maintainable and he is entitled to prefer an appeal as early as possible preferably within a period of seven days from the date of production of certified copy of the order. If it is done, then in that case it will be heard and disposed of preferably within a period of one month thereafter.;