Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH COLLECTOR, UDAIPUR & OTHERS V/S MAD KANWAR & ANOTHER, decided on Thursday, November 17, 2016.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench, Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 361 of 2007. ] 17/11/2016
Judge(s) : GOVIND MATHUR & DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Advocate(s) : None appeared. M.S. Singhvi, Senior , assisted by Rajat Dave.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (2) WLN 336"  ==   ""  







    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 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.