N.K. Sud, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner Ferozepur Division dated 4.31986, whereby the appeal of the respondent -State against the order of Collector Sub Division Faridkot dated 18.12.1984 has been allowed. The Sub Divisional Engineer (Central Works) Sub Division, PWD B&R, Faridkot had filed an application dated 11.7.1984 under Sec. 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short the 'Act') for eviction of the petitioner from the land measuring 963 sq. ft. comprised in Khasra No. 8643 situated at Faridkot Kotakpura Road Faridkot on the ground that he was utilising the same without permission of the department. At the time of hearing, the petitioner submitted that similar application filed earlier had already been dismissed in default on 4.10.1983 and even the application for restoration moved by the Sub Divisional Engineer on 22.12.1983 had also been dismissed on 16.5.1984. Thus the petitioner contended that the second application was barred under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. This contention was accepted by the Collector and accordingly vide order dated 18.12.1984 he dismissed the second application. The State filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur, Division Ferozepur. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the order impugned in appear and had been passed under Sec. 4 of the Act against which no appeal could be filed. Reference was made to Sec. 9 of the Act to show that appeals were provided only against orders passed under Sec. 5 or Sec. 7" of the Act. This preliminary objection has been rejected by the Commissioner in the following terms: - "While it is correct that under Sec. 9 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 an appeal is competent before Commissioner against an order under Sec. 5 or 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 yet it has to be observed that Collector has no option but to pass an order on merit after hearing the parties. In the present case the Collector has not passed an order on merit which, under the law, is not permissible to him. Therefore, in such cases the aggrieved party has no remedy but to file an appeal against such an order."
(2.) From a plain reading of the finding contained in the above paragraph, it is evident that the Commissioner agreed with the contention raised by the petitioner that no appeal was provided against an order passed under Sec. 4 of the Act, and yet he had entertained the appeal by observing that since the order passed by the Collector, was not in accordance with law and the aggrieved party had no remedy against the same, therefore, the appeal before him was competent. This finding cannot be sustained. Right to appeal is a statutory right and unless specifically provided, it cannot be assumed. Sec. 9 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that no appeal has been provided against an order under Sec. 4. Thus the appellate authority could not assume jurisdiction on the ground that the party aggrieved by an order has no other remedy.
(3.) Thus, according to me, the Commissioner was not justified in over -ruling the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the petitioner. He had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under the Act. Since the impugned order dated 4.3.1986, Annexure P/7 is liable to be quashed on this ground itself it is not necessary for me to deal with the other points raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order Annexure P/7 is quashed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.;