- (1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of Mukherji, J. , dated the 21st november, 1963 dismissing the petition and discharging the Rule.
(2.) THE facts are very clearly stated in the judgment of the Court below and i shall only repeat the essential facts. The application was made by a number of displaced persons and the matter arises in respect of proceedings under the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised occupation of Land Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act'") and the Rules made thereunder known as the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised occupation of Land Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules" ). The appellants and the Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 were declared as bona fide displaced persons from Pakistan, in unauthorised occupation at 13/2, Munshipara Lane in the city of Calcutta. The respondent Nos. 4 to 8 purchased a portion of the siad premises. They filed an application before the 'competent authority" under the said Act for compensation and eviction of the said petitioners. On the 1st may, 1953 the competent authority passed an order declaring the appellants and respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as bona fide refugees and ordering that they should vacate the premises within ninety days from the date of the order but also holding that they were entitled to protection under section 4, and therefore, a copy of the order should be communicated to the Commissioner, relief and Rehabilitation for furnishing alternative accommodation. By an order dated the 1st December, 1953 the persons in unauthorised occupation were ordered to pay compensation until they vacated the rooms. So far as the applicants in the court below are concerned, they failed to pay any compensation or consideration for occupation. An application was made for execution on the 3rd January, 1s59. On the 13th April, 1959 after hearing all parties, the Competent Authority passed the following order: "the case is put up today for hearing of the show cause matter. Sree B. K. Chakraborty, Pleader appears on behalf of the owner applicants. The occupants are also present. No cause is shown. * * * the occupants are admittedly in default. It is accordingly ordered that the protection order be vacated and the occupants are hereby directed to vacate the disputed property. It appears that occupant No. 4 Sree ashutosh Dewan, who is a doctor is wilfully avoiding to pay consideration. It further transpires that he is not personally liying in the disputed room and that the room is being possessed by him through his son who is also a practising physician. Let the execution of the decree of eviction be proceeded with against him for his eviction. As regards occupants Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 it appears that they are too poor to pay any consideration at present or in the: near future. They pray for one month's time to vacate. The prayer is allowed and they are hereby directed to vacate the disputed property by 13-5-63 failing which, they will be evicted under due process of law. " On the occupants failing to vacate, the owners proceeded to execute the order after applying for police help. Thereafter the occupants perferred an appeal being Appeal No. 24 of 1959 from the said order raising among other grounds a point of limitation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated the 15th march, 1960 dismissed the point of limitation but made the following order: "let the appellants occupants pay for the consideration the full amount in respect of the current month and the amount due for three months in respect of the arrears the first payment to be made within a month from the date of this judgment and thereafter every month. So long as these payments are made, eviction will be stayed until alternative accommodation has been provided according to law. If, however, the occupants fail to make the payments as directed above, the decree for the eviction will be executed. " The occupants filed an application for review of this order but by an order dated the 25th April, 1960 the same was rejected. Against the order of eviction and the order of the Tribunal, an application under Article 226 of the Constitution was made in the Court below.
(3.) BEFORE I proceed further, it is necessary to deal with the provisions of the said Act. The said Act is an Act to provide for the rehabilitation of displaced persons and eviction persons in unauthorised occupation of lands and for certain matters connected therewith. Under section 3 (1), an owner of any land may at any time before the expiry of the 31st day of march, 1957 make an application in the prescribed manner to the "competent authority" for the eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of the land provided that such unauthorised occupation commenced before the 1st day of october, 1946. Sub-section (2) provides that on receipt of such application, the Competent authority shall make such enquiry as it thinks fit, and shall, by notice served in the prescribed manner on every person who appears to it upon such enquiry to be in unauthorised occupation of the land, require him to show cause within thirty days of the service of the notice why he should not vacate the land and pay to the owner, compensation for unauthorised occupation. Under sub-section (3) , the "competent Authority" after such proceedings may order any person in unauthorised occupation to vacate the land within such time, not being less than thirty days from the date of the order and may fix such compensation as he may deem fit. Under sub-section (4) , if any person against whom an order under sub-section (3) has been made directing to vacate the land, refuses or fails to vac ate the land within the time fixed, then the otrder may be executed in the manner prescribed. We now come to section 4 which gives some protection to displaced persons. The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4 are set out below :- "notwithstanding anything contined in section 3, no order under sub-section (3) of that section shall be executed if the person in respect of whom the order has been made is a displaced person who on the 31st day of December, 1950, was in unauthorised occupation of the land referred to in that sub-section, until the State Government provides for him in the prescribed manner. " Section 9 provides that any sum payable under an order of the Competent authority or of the Tribunal as consideration, compensation, premum or rent shall be recoverable in the maner stated therein.;