- (1.) This Rule raises a simple question. The relevant facts are not in dispute and they may be stated as follows: The Petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the disputed property (Premises No. 15A, Ram Kumar Park, Tollygunge), applied, in 1951, before the Competent Authority under the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised Occupation of Land Act, 1951 (West Ben. XVI of 1951), under Section 3 of the said Act, for eviction of the opposite parties on the allegation that they were in unauthorised occupation of the said land. The said application was allowed by the Competent Authority on October 24, 1952, and an ex parte order for eviction was made against the opposite parties under the said Act.
(2.) Thereafter, on February 26, 1953, the opposite parties applied for review of the said order on the ground that no notice of the Petitioner's application under Section 3 of the Act, mentioned above, had been served upon them. This application was rejected by the Competent Authority on July 11, 1953.
(3.) Thereafter the opposite parties applied on September 7, 1953, under Section 4 of the Act for protection under that section on the ground that they were displaced persons within the meaning of the Act and therein there was also a prayer for staying execution. By an order of the same date, this application of the opposite parties was rejected on the preliminary ground, inter alia, that the question whether the opposite parties were displaced persons within the meaning of the Act had already been decided against them by the order, dated October 24, 1952.;