At, High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
For the Appellants: None appeared. For the Respondents: M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Rajat Dave, Advocate.
1. This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2537/2005. Learned Single Bench by the order impugned while affirming the order
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
passed by the appellate authority under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964') held that no disputed question about title and long possession on the property in question could have been examined under the Act of 1964 by the Estate Officer.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that an application was preferred before the Estate Officer by the Inspector of Devasthan Department under Section 4 of the Act of 1964 alleging unauthorized occupation on the premises of the Department of Devasthan. In return, the respondents came with the case that for the property in question, a patta was issued by formar Princely State of Mewar in favour of their predecessors and as such, the property is not a public premises. The Estate Office examined the objection on merits and negativated the same. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before learned District Judge, Udaipur, which came to be allowed on 10.09.2004. Learned District Judge arrived at the conclusion that no question of title could have been decided under the Act of 1964. Accordingly, the judgement passed by the Estate Officer and the certificate granted as per Section 5 was set aside.3. It is well-settled that under the Act of 1964, an unauthorized occupant on public premises can be evicted, but if there is any dispute about title supported by cogent evidence to arrive at the conclusion that prima facie such dispute exists, then it is not open for the Estate Officer to examine the same. Such an issue is required to be settled by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.4. In view of it, we do not find any just reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Bench. The appeal, as such, is having no force. Hence, dismissed.
"2017 (2) WLN 336,"