- (1.) THE appellants-plaintiffs, who are the daughters of the original plaintiff, Nanu Singh, a retired R.I. of Police Department, are before this Court in the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of two courts below in a suit for injunction filed by the original plaintiff, Nanu Singh, during his lifetime, who is alleged to have expired on 09.05.2006, during the pendency of the Civil Suit No.149/1997 [Nanu Singh Vs. Estate Officer, Addl. District Magistrate (Urban), Bikaner], instituted by Nanu Singh against the Estate Officer with respect to suit property, public premises, known as 'Kohina House', situated near 'Sattarkhana' at Bikaner.
(2.) THE relevant facts required for the purpose of disposal of this second appeal are that the impugned eviction proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer, Bikaner seeking eviction of the plaintiff, Nanu Singh, from the suit property under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1964') way back in the year 1973 by issuing notice under Section 4 of the said Act. However, the then Estate Officer dropped the proceedings against the plaintiff, Nanu Singh, vide his order dated 24.10.1973, which order was withdrawn shortly thereafter on 12.11.1973 by the Estate Officer himself. THE plaintiff, Nanu Singh, a police personnel, challenged the said order dated 12.11.1973 recalling the previous order dated 24.10.1973 before this Court by filing writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No.2053/1973- Nanu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which however, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on November 30, 1978 holding as under: - "In this context it may be further observed that on 24th October, 1973 it was the petitioner who had to adduce the evidence in support of his claim and nothing had to be done by the representative of the department and, therefore, the Estate Officer was not justified in dropping the proceedings merely on the ground that the authorized representative on behalf of the department was not present. THE order dated 12th November, 1973 appears to be eminently a just order order in as much as it does not prejudicially affect the rights of the petitioner who will have an opportunity of adducing his evidence in support of his claim on the premises in dispute are not pubic premises. Thus no injustice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order and no case is made for interference with the said order in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. THE result is that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will no be order as to costs. Sd/- S.C. Agarwal, J." A further Division Bench appeal filed by the plaintiff, Nanu Singh, also failed vide DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.26/1979 (Nanu Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) on 04.07.1984 with the following order: - "Hon'ble Shri Dwarka Prasad, J. Hon'ble Shri S.S. Byas, J. Mr. J.R. Tatia, for the appellant. Mr. S.R. Singhvi ) for respondent No.3 Mr. S. Kumbhat ) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Estate Officer rightly restored the proceedings earlier dropped by him. Learned counsel for the appellant did not deny the fact that the appellant was given an opportunity of hearing. In this view of the matter, no prejudice was caused to the appellant, as held by learned Single Judge. The special appeal has no force and the same dismissed." The present suit No.149/1997 for injunction appears to have been filed by the plaintiff, Nanu Singh, who died during the pendency of the said suit on 09.05.2006, and his two married daughters, namely, Smt. Kamal Kanwar W/o Sh. Chhagan Singh, living at Adarsh Colony, Bikaner and Smt. Dariyab Kanwar W/o late Sh. Prithvi Pal Singh Jadon, living at Ladpura, Kota, vide the addresses given in the cause title of the suit itself, challenged the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer-cum-Additional District Magistrate (Urban), Bikaner on 26.03.1997. The said suit filed by the plaintiff, however, came to be dismissed by the learned trial court vide the judgment dated 07.03.2008 in Civil Suit No.149/1997; and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff's daughters also came to be dismissed by the first lower appellate court vide the judgment dated 05.03.2011 in Civil Appeal No.76/2009 and the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-daughters before this Court on 03.06.2011, which after so many adjournments granted at the request has came up for admission today before this Court. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs submitted that after initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of Act of 1964 vide order dated 12.11.1973, which was upheld by learned Single Judge of this Court and thereafter by Division Bench, vide respective orders dated 30.11.1978 and 04.07.1984, actually no due process of law in the form of proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act of 1964 were undertaken by the competent Estate Officer, but he merely passed the final eviction order on 26.03.1997 upon application filed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police on 19.03.1997, copies of these two applications dated 19.03.1997 and 26.03.1997, were placed before this Court for perusal. He further submitted that in absence of any regular proceedings undertaken under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1964, the due process of law cannot be said to have undertaken for eviction under the Act of 1964, and consequently both the courts below have erred in dismissing the civil suit filed by the plaintiff and the same give rise to substantial questions of law, requiring consideration by this Court under Section 100 of CPC. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present matter. The present case has a chequered history, and at least proceedings against the father (Nanu Singh) of the present appellants, which were undertaken way back in the year 1973 and notice under Section 4 of 1964 Act was issued to him; and the plaintiff contested his case before the High Court at two forums and thereafter was expected to contest or defend his eviction before the Estate Officer also, who sought to evict him invoking powers under the Act of 1964. Not a shred of evidence was produced by the plaintiff before any of this court or the authority below showing his right, title or interest in the suit property or to show that the said property was not a public premises covered by 1964 Act. Mere possession of the suit property by him as claimed, was prior to 1947, does not entitle either him or his legal representatives to such continued possession of the public premises.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, sought to submit that in the cross-examination, the departmental witness admitted that they have not brought any record showing the proceedings of Section 4 and 5 of the Act of 1964 having been undertaken by the Estate Officer; and therefore, the findings resulting in dismissal of the suit should be held to be perverse. This Court is not impressed with this submission. The concurrent findings are based on evidence brought before the trial court below and the during the course of the contest by the plaintiff, Nanu Singh, who was a retired police personnel, before this Court and before the Estate Officer and also while pursuing his injunction suit before the courts below and his failure to file any suit for declaration claiming title over the said property, leaves no manner of doubt that concurrent findings arrived at by the two courts below regarding premises in question being public premise and eviction thereof having been ordered by the Estate Officer on 26.03.1997 in pursuance of the notice under Section 4 issued in 1973 itself, after dismissal of his writ petition before this Court up-to Division Bench, and admittedly the said orders having become final, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below cannot be said to be perverse so as to give rise to any substantial question of law, as alleged in the present second appeal. Consequently, the present second appeal of the appellants-plaintiffs is found to be devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent-Estate Officer-District Magistrate (Urban), Bikaner and the courts below forthwith.;