Skip to content


Babaji Charan Das Vs. District Judge and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberO.J.C. No. 1687 of 1979
Judge
Reported in1985(I)OLR621
ActsOrissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 9; Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1962 - Rule 5
AppellantBabaji Charan Das
RespondentDistrict Judge and ors.
Appellant AdvocateP.K. Misra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAddl. Standing Counsel
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
.....cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - 1. this is an application under act, 226 of the constitution of india challenging the orders of the learned district judge, sundargarh as well as the estate officer passed under the orissa public premises ( eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') 2. the petitioner was originally appointed as a peon under the public works department (roads and buildings) at rourkela......of india challenging the orders of the learned district judge, sundargarh as well as the estate officer passed under the orissa public premises ( eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act')2. the petitioner was originally appointed as a peon under the public works department (roads and buildings) at rourkela. there after his services were placed at the disposal of the general public health department and since then he is serving as a peon in the said department. when the petitioner was working under the public works department (r & b) at rourkela, he approached the executive engineer (r & b) for accommodation in one of the government quarters. the then executive engineer upon consideration of the representation of the petitioner allowed.....
Judgment:

P.C. Misra, J.

1. This is an application under Act, 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the learned District Judge, Sundargarh as well as the Estate Officer passed under the Orissa Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')

2. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Peon under the Public Works Department (Roads and Buildings) at Rourkela. There after his services were placed at the disposal of the General Public Health Department and since then he is serving as a Peon in the said Department. When the petitioner was working under the Public Works Department (R & B) at Rourkela, he approached the Executive Engineer (R & B) for accommodation in one of the Government quarters. The then Executive Engineer upon consideration of the representation of the petitioner allowed him to occupy quarters No. G/58 meant for occupation of Class IV employees of the Government. The petitioner's case is that he has been occupying the said quarters on the verbal order of the Executive Engineer since 1973. Some time after such occupation by the petitioner, the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, Rourkela initiated a proceeding before the Estate Officer for eviction of the petitioner under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The proceeding was registered as O. P. P. Case No. 11 of 1975. The petitioner being noticed in the matter filed his show-cause. His grievance is that the proceeding was unnecessarily dragged on and ultimately the direction was issued to the petitioner to vacate the quarters within a time specified therein. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the show-cause of the petitioner was not considered by the Estate Officer, but on the basis of a report received from the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, Rourkela he directed eviction of the petitioner. It is further alleged on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity of being heard was given to him before an order of eviction was passed by the Estate Officer.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Estate Officer preferred an appeal (Misc. (O. P. P.) Appeal No. 1/52 of 1973)before the District Judge Sundargarh, which was the appellate forum under the stature. The learned District Judge, after hearing the parties, came to a conclusion that there had been some procedural defects in conducting the matter by the Estate Officer which was prejudicial to the petitioner. But he declined to interfere in the matter saying that the procedural defect or even non giving of any opportunity of hearing to the appellant petitioner is not enough to warrant an interference. According to the opinion of the learned District Judge, the appellant before he had no merits in the appeal and therefore the appeal should be dismissed

3. A perusal of the procedure adopted by the Estate Officer in conducting the enquiry would convince any body that he conducted the proceeding in a manner not sanctioned by the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Rule 5 of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1962 provides that where any person on whom a notice or order under this Act has been served desires to be heard he must be afforded all opportunities and the Estate Officer shall record the summary of the evidence tendered before him. All that the Estate Officer did was that he had perused the report submitted before him by the Executive Engineer, Road? and Buildings Division, Rourkela. More shocking circumstance is that the appellats authority being a judicial officer noticed the defects in the procedure followed by the Estate Officer and still overlooked the same saying that it was not-enough for his interference. In our view, the proceeding before the Estate Officer was conducted in a perfunctory manner without reference to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and it was a fit case where the District Judge should have interfered.

4. In view of our foregoing discussions, we set aside the order of the learned District Judge as per Annexure-1 and remit back the matter to the Estate Officer, Panposh to dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law after giving all opportunities to the parties to substantiate their respective cases.

5. The petitioner and the opp. party No. 3 are directed to appear before the Estate Officer. Panposh on 15th of March, 1985, when the Estate Officer shall fix up a date for further proceeding in the matter.

6. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicate above. In the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.

S.C. Mohapatra, J.

7. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //