- (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Officer dropped the proceedings against the plaintiff, Nanu Singh, vide his order dated 24.10.1973, which order was withdrawn shortly thereafter on 12.11.1973 by the Estate Officer himself.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 24 th 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 12 th 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.
(3.) 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. ;