- (1.) THE defects pointed out by the office are taken note of and are ignored. The learned Government Counsel frankly submits that the issues involved in this appeal stand squarely covered by the order dated 29.04.2013 passed in a batch of petitions led by SAW No. 20/2013. The said order dated 29.04.2013 reads as under:- "On the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel appearing for the appellants, SAW Nos. 957/2012 and 128/2013 have also been taken on board today. These six matters, arising out of the common order and involving similar controversy, have been considered together; and are taken up for final disposal by this common order. The defects pointed out by the office in some of these matters are taken note of and are ignored. Put in a nutshell, the crux of the matter is that the respondents herein filed the writ petitions while questioning the order dated 03.07.2012, as passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh requiring them to execute fresh rent agreements in relation to the shops let to them by Panchayat Samiti, Chittorgarh and else, for their dispossession. It is borne out from the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the lead order dated 18.09.2012 as passed in CWP No. 7097/2012 : Kailash Chandra Dad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. that on Sunday dated 22.07.2012, the authorities of the Panchayat Samiti deprived the writ-petitioners of the use of the shops in question by putting their locks over the petitioners' locks. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and analysing the scheme of the applicable law, i.e., the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 as also the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 ['the Act of 1964'], came to the conclusion that the action of the respondent Chief Executive Officer, who is also the Estate Officer in respect of the public premises belonging to the Panchayati Raj Institutions, in directing eviction of the writ-petitioners from the premises let to them without valid termination of tenancy while by-passing the procedure provided under the relevant statute could not but deemed to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed as under:- "22. ........ Thus, the action of the respondent-Chief Executive Officer, who is also Estate Officer in respect of public premises belonging to Village Panchayats, Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad, in directing eviction of the petitioners from the premises let out to them in perfunctory manner, without valid termination of tenancy treating them to be unauthorised occupants, by-passing the procedure provided under the relevant Statute cannot but deemed to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction." The learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petitions while awarding costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to each of the writ-petitioners except the petitioner of CWP No. 7126/2012. The learned Single Judge, however, made it clear that the order would, otherwise, not preclude the concerned Panchayat Samiti from terminating the tenancy of the petitioners and taking action for their eviction from the premises in question in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge observed and ordered as under:- "24. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The orders dated 3.7.12 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh and notice issued pursuant thereto by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Chittorgarh impugned in these writ petitions are quashed. The respondents are directed to remove the lock put by them on the shops let out to the petitioners and put them in possession thereof forthwith. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondent-Panchayat Samiti from terminating the tenancy of the petitioners and taking action for their eviction from the premises in question in accordance with law. Each of the petitioners except the petitioner in writ petition No. 7126/12, shall be entitled for cost quantified at Rs. 5,000/- from the respondent no. 3- Panchayat Samiti, Chittorgarh." The learned Government Counsel Mr. K.K. Bissa appearing for the appellants frankly submits that since after passing of the order by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have taken recourse to the appropriate proceedings under the Act of 1964 and those proceedings are pending. Having considered the facts and the totality of the circumstances, we find no reason to entertain these intra-court appeals. In the first place, the order as passed by the learned Single Judge appears to be just and proper; and does not appear suffering from any infirmity as to warrant interference. Secondly, when the appellants have acted upon the other part of the impugned order and have taken recourse to the appropriate proceedings under the Act of 1964, even otherwise, nothing of a cause could be considered surviving for appellants to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly and in view of above, these appeals stand dismissed."
(2.) THE position aforesaid directly applies to the present case too. Accordingly, this appeal also stands dismissed following the aforesaid order dated 29.04.2013 and in the same terms. "Put in a nutshell, the crux of the matter is that the respondents herein filed the writ petitions while questioning the order dated 03.07.2012, as passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh requiring them to execute fresh rent agreements in relation to the shops let to them by Panchayat Samiti, Chittorgarh and else, for their dispossession. It is borne out from the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the lead order dated 18.09.2012 as passed in CWP No. 7097/2012 : Kailash Chandra Dad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. that on Sunday dated 22.07.2012, the authorities of the Panchayat Samiti deprived the writ-petitioner of the use of the shops in question by putting their locks over the petitioner's locks. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and analysing the scheme of the applicable law, i.e., the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 as also the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 ['the Act of 1964'], came to the conclusion that the action of the respondent Chief Executive Officer, who is also the Estate Officer in respect of the public premises belonging to the Panchayati Raj Institutions, in directing eviction of the writ-petitioners from the premises let to them without valid termination of tenancy while by- passing the procedure provided under the relevant statute could not but deemed to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed as under:- "22. ........ Thus, the action of the respondent-Chief Executive Officer, who is also Estate Officer in respect of public premises belonging to Village Panchayats, Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad, in directing eviction of the petitioners from the premises let out to them in perfunctory manner, without valid termination of tenancy treating them to be unauthorised occupants, by-passing the procedure provided under the relevant Statute cannot but deemed to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction." The learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petitions while awarding costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to each of the writ-petitioners except the petitioner of CWP No. 7126/2012. The learned Single Judge, however, made it clear that the order would, otherwise, not preclude the concerned Panchayat Samiti from terminating the tenancy of the petitioners and taking action for their eviction from the premises in question in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge observed and ordered as under:- "24. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The orders dated 3.7.12 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh and notice issued pursuant thereto by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Chittorgarh impugned in these writ petitions are quashed. The respondents are directed to remove the lock put by them on the shops let out to the petitioners and put them in possession thereof forthwith. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondent-Panchayat Samiti from terminating the tenancy of the petitioners and taking action for their eviction from the premises in question in accordance with law. Each of the petitioners except the petitioner in writ petition No. 7126/12, shall be entitled for cost quantified at Rs. 5,000/- from the respondent no. 3- Panchayat Samiti, Chittorgarh." The learned Government Counsel Mr. K.K. Bissa appearing for the appellants frankly submits that since after passing of the order by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have taken recourse to the appropriate proceedings under the Act of 1964 and those proceedings are pending. Having considered the facts and the totality of the circumstances, we find no reason to entertain this intra-court appeal.
(3.) IN the first place, the order as passed by the learned Single Judge appears to be just and proper; and does not appear suffering from any infirmity as to warrant interference. Secondly, when the appellants have acted upon the other part of the impugned order and have taken recourse to the appropriate proceedings under the Act of 1964, even otherwise, nothing of a cause could be considered surviving for appellants to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly and in view of above, these appeals stand dismissed.;