Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 16.11.2011 passed in Eviction Appeal No.01 of 2011 by the learned District Judge, Saraikella is under challenge whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the order dated 08.09.2011 passed by the Estate Officer (Annexure-2), which has been affirmed by the appellate court in pursuance to the provision conferred to him under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner that he has entered into an agreement for retail outlet with the I.B.P. Company Ltd. for a period of 90 years as on 19.11.1999 and thereafter he has started carrying out his business, in course of the subsistence period of the contract as per the decision taken, the I.B.P. has merged with the India Oil Corporation in the year 2007 and thereafter he became the dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation and carried out his business in pursuance to the terms and conditions of the contract but the said contract has been terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation vide order dated 24.07.2009. However the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order of termination of the contract by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing writ petition before it. The authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation has made an application for initiation of a proceeding for eviction of the petitioner from the premises by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under the Act, 1971, the Estate Officer initiated a proceeding in view of the power conferred to him under Section 5 of the Act wherein the order of eviction has been passed treating the petitioner as unauthorized occupants. The petitioner being aggrieved with the same has invoked the jurisdiction of appellate court as per the provision contained it under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 the appellate court has confirmed the order passed by the Estate Officer against which this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out the case by assailing the order passed by the appellate court on the following grounds:- (I) The ground of jurisdiction has not been considered either by the Estate Officer or by the appellate court, since according to him the Estate Officer of the State of Bihar is having no jurisdiction to act as an Estate Officer of the property falling within the territory of the State of Jharkhand, therefore the order is without jurisdiction hence is not sustainable. (II) The factual aspect has been urged before the appellate court but in a very haste manner the appeal has been disposed of by confirming the order passed by the Estate Office therefore, as such there is no proper appreciation of the factual aspects hence not sustainable. (III) The petitioner has vested huge amount of money on the basis of tender of the contract which was for 90 years but due to the said eviction the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.;