Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Union Of India And Ors vs The Board Of Revenue Ajmer And O … on 26 March, 2025
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 590/2005
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4627/2004
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi.
2. The Defence Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle, Bani Park,
Jaipur.
3. Station Commander, Head Quarter, 61 (I), Sub Area
....Petitioners
versus
1. The Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer
2. Shri Bhanwar Lal, s/o Shri Ganesh Jat, R/o Village-
Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District- Jaipur
3. Shri Ghasi Lal (Ghasi Ram), s/o Shri Ganesh Jat, R/o
Village Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District-Jaipur
4. Shri Manna Lal, s/o Shri Mauji Ram, died through:
4/1 Shri Kalyan Sahay, s/o Lt Shri MannalaJat
4/2 Shri Sohan Lal, s/o Lt Shri MannalaJat
4/3 Shri Chotu, s/o Lt Shri MannalaJat
4/4 Ganga Ram, s/o Lt Shri MannalaJat
All R/o Village -Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District-Jaipur.
5. Mohru Lal, S/o Maujiram, Died through
5/1 Ram Niwas, S/o Lt. Sh. Mohru Lal Jat
5/2 Shravan Lal, S/o Lt. Sh. Mohru Lal Jat
5/3 Jagdish, S/o Lt. Sh. Mohru Lal Jat, died Through
5/3/1 Smt Anita, w/o Lt Shri Jagdish
5/3/2 Shri Sumit Chopra, s/o Lt Shri Jagdish
5/3/3 Shri Jitendra s/o Lt Shri Jitendra
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (2 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
5/3/4 Smt Savita, d/o Lt Shri Jagdish
5/3/5 SmtKavita Chopra, d/o Lt Shri Jagdish
All are R/o Village Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District Jaipur.
6. Shri LaxmiNarain, S/o Shri MohrulalJat, r/o Village -
Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District-Jaipur.
7. State of Rajasthan, through the Collector, Jaipur
8. Sub Division Officer, Jaipur-1
9. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur
.....Respondents
Connected with
D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) 649 /2005
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4400/2004
1. UNION OF INDIA
through the Secretary Ministry of Defence New Delhi.
2. The Defence Estate Officer
Rajasthan Circie, Bani Park, Jaipur.
3. Station Commander
Head Quarter 61 (I), Sub Area.
…Petitioners
Versus
1. The Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer.
2. Shri Udairam, s/o Sh. Jhuntha, Died through
2/1. Shri Lalhulal
2/2. Shri Hari Narain
All are S/o Lt. Sh. Udairam, R/o Village- Jagannath Pura, Tehsil
and District-Jaipur.
3. Shri Ram Narain, S/o Gyarsiram, Died through
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (3 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
3/1. Shri Chhitar
3/2. Shri Mahendra
All are S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Narain Jat, R/o Village-Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District Jaipur.
4. State of Rajasthan, through the Collector, Jaipur
5. Sub Division Officer, Jaipur-1, Jaipur.
6. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur.
…Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 739/2005
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4401/2004
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi.
2. The Defence Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle, Bani Park,
Jaipur.
3. Station Commander, Head Quarter, 61(1), Sub Area
—-Appellants
Versus
1. The Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer
2. Shri Manphool S/o Shri Harbaksh died through
2/1. Shri Panchu Ram (Since Deceased) through Lr’s
2/1/1 Gulab Devi @ Gaindi Devi W/o Panchu Lal
2/1/2 Mahendra son of Late Panchu Lal
2/1/3 Lokendra son of Late Panchu Lal
2/1/4 Jogendra son of Late Panchu Lal
2/1/5 Hansa W/o Late Shankar
2/1/5/1. Himanshu son of Late Shri Shekhar
2/1/5/2 Nikitia son of Late Shri Shekhar
2/2 Shri Sohan
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (4 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
All S/o Late Shri Manphool Jat, R/o Village-Jagannathpura, Tehsil
& District Jaipur
3. Shri Narain Lal son of Late Shri Peesram @ Birda R/o Village-
Jagannathpura, Tehsil & District Jaipur (Since Deceased)
3/1. Manbhar Devi w/o Late Narain Lal
3/2 Tejprakash S/o Late Narain Lal
3/3 Pooran S/o Late Narain Lal
3/4 Manoj D/o Late Narain Lal
3/5 Prem Devi D/o Late Narain Lal
4. Shri Mohru Ram s/o Late Shri Preesram @ Birda R/o Village –
Jagannathpura, Tehsil & District Jaipur (Since Deceased)
5. Shri Babulal Late Shri Peesram @ Birda R/o Village-
Jagannathpura, Tehsil & District Jaipur (Since Deceased)
6. Shri Chotu S/o Late Shri Lalram died through
6/1 Shri Chittar
6/2 Shri Lallo
6/3 Srinarayan (Since Deceased) through LR’s
6/3/1 Kamla Devi w/o Late Srinarayan
6/3/2 Ramesh S/o Late Srinarayan
6/3/3Neeraj S/o Late Srinarayan
6/3/4 Asha Devi S/o Late Srinarayan
All R/o Village-Jagannathpura, Tehsil & District Jaipur (Since
Deceased)
7. State of Rajasthan through the Collector Jaipur.
8. Sub Division Officer Jaipur-I
9. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur.
…Respondents
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (5 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 828/2005
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4344/2004
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi.
2. The Defence Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle, Bani Park,
Jaipur.
3. Station Commander, Head Quarter, 61 (1), Sub Area
…Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Shri Anandi Lal S/o Chandara, by caste Jat, R/o
Jagannathpura, Tehsil and District Jaipur, died through
1/1 Bhanwar Lal
1/2 Prabhu Lal
1/3 Shrawan Kumar
1/4 Vijendra
1/5 Prahlad
1/6 Dilip
1/7 Mohan
All are S/o Lt. Shri Anandi Lal, R/o Village-Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District- Jaipur
2. Kalyan Lal S/o Chandra, by caste Jat, R/o Jagannathpura,
Tehsil and District Jaipur (since deceased)
2/1 Prahalad S/o Kalyan Mal
2/2 Soni w/o Ramesh
2/3 Dileep Son of Ramesh
2/4 Mohan S/o Ramesh
3. State of Rajasthan, through the Collector, Jaipur
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (6 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
4. Board of Revenue, through Registrar, Rajasthan, Ajmer
…Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1014/2005
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4392/2004
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New
Delhi.
2. The Defence Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur.
3. Station Commander, Head Quarter, 61 (I), Sub, Area.
…….. Petitioners.
Versus
1. The Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer
2. Shri Manna Lal, S/o Maujiram, died through
2/1 Kalyan Sahay
2/2 Sohan Lal
2/3 Chotu
2/4 Ganga Ram
All are S/o Lt. Shri Munna Lal, R/o Village – Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
3. Shri Laxminarain S/o Maujiram R/o Village – Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
4. Shri Mohru Lal, S/o Maujiram, died through
4/1 Ram Niwas
4/2 Shravan Lal
4/3 Jagdish
4/4 Kailash
4/5 Rohtas
All are S/o Lt. Sh. Mohru Lal Jat, R/o Village – Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
5. Shri Bhanwar Lal, S/o Sh. Ganesh Jat, R/o Village – Jagannath
Pura, Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
6. Shri Ghasiram, S/o Sh. Ganesh Jat, R/o Village – Jagannath
Pura, Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
7. Shri Harbaksh S/o Lala Ram died through
7/1 Shri Sohan
7/2 Shri Panchu
All are S/o Lt. Sh. Harbaksh Jat, R/o Village – Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
8. Shri Narain Lal, S/o Lt. Shri Thanduram Jat, R/o Village –
Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
9. Shri Bhairu Ram @ Mahesh Kumar S/o Lt. Shri Thanduram Jat
died through
9/1 Smt. Suja Devi, W/o Lt. Shri Bhairu Ram
9/2 Shri Rajendra Choudhary, S/o Lt. Shri Bhairu Ram
9/3 Shri Kailash, S/o Lt. Shri Bhairu Ram
9/4 Shri Surendra, S/o Lt. Shri Bhairu Ram
9/5 Lt. Shri Ashok, S/o Lt. Shri Bhairu Ram, through:
9/5/1 Smt. Santosh, W/o Lt. Shri Ashok
9/5/2 Ms. Anjali (Minor), D/o Lt. Shri Ashok(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (7 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]9/5/3 Mr. Aman (Minor), S/o Lt. Shri Ashok Respondent no. 9/5/2
and 9/5/3 represented by Smt. Santosh W/o Lt. Shri Ashok,
being natural guardian.
All R/o Village-Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District – Jaipur.
10. Shri Babulal, S/o Lt. Shri Thanduram Jat, R/o Village –
Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District-Jaipur
11. Shri Chotu, S/o Late Shri Lala; died through
11/1 Shri Chiitar
11/2 Shri Lalloo
11/3 Shri Srinarain since deceased through LRs
11/3/1 Smt. Kamla Devi Late Shri Srinarain
11/3/2 Shri Ramesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Late Shri Srinarain
11/3/3 Shri Neeraj Kumar S/o Late Shri Srinarain
Above Resident of S-5, Parivahan Nagar, Khatipura, Vaishali
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302021
11/3/4 Smt. Asha Choudhary D/o Late Shri Srinarain W/o Awadh
Choudhary
R/o 63, Indra Colony, Bani Park, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur – 302016
All are S/o Lt. Sh. Chotu, R/o Village -Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and
District-Jaipur
12. Shri Ramnarain, S/o Sh. Gyarsilal, died through
12/1 Sh. Mahendra
12/2 Sh.Chittar
All are S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Narain Jat, R/o Village -Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District-Jaipur
13. State of Rajasthan, through the Collector, Jaipur
14. Sub Division Officer, Jaipur-1
15. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur
…… Respondents.
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.61/2007
In
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1014/2005
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4392/2004
1. Shri Manna Lal, S/o Maujiram, died through
1/1 Kalyan Sahay
1/2 Sohan Lal
1/3 Chotu
1/4 Ganga Ram
All are S/o Lt. Shri Munna Lal, R/o Village – Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
2. Shri Laxminarain S/o Maujiram R/o Village – Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
3. Shri Mohru Lal, S/o Maujiram, died through
3/1 Ram Niwas
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (8 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
3/2 Shravan Lal
3/3 Jagdish
3/5 Rohtas
All are S/o Lt. Sh. Mohru Lal Jat, R/o Village – Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
4. Shri Bhanwar Lal, S/o Sh. Ganesh Jat, R/o Village – Jagannath
Pura, Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
5. Shri Ghasi Ram, S/o Sh. Ganesh Jat, R/o Village – Jagannath
Pura, Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
6. Shri Harbaksh S/o Lala Ram died through
6/1 Shri Sohan
6/2 Shri Panchu
All are S/o Lt. Sh. Harbaksh Jat, R/o Village – Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
7. Shri Narain Lal, S/o Lt. Shri Thanduram Jat, R/o Village –
Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
8.Shri Mohru Ram S/o Shri Thanduram Jat, R/o Village –
Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District- Jaipur.
9. Shri Babulal, S/o Lt. Shri Thanduram Jat, R/o Village –
Jagannath Pura, Tehsil and District-Jaipur
10. Shri Chotu, S/o Late Shri Lala; died through
10/1 Shri Chiitar
10/2 Shri Lalloo
10/3 Shri Srinarain since deceased through LRs
All are S/o Late Shri Chotu, R/o Village -Jagannath Pura, Tehsil
and District-Jaipur
11. Shri Ramnarain, S/o Sh. Gyarsilal, died through
11/1 Sh. Mahendra
11/2 Sh.Chittar
All are S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Narain Jat, R/o Village -Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil and District-Jaipur
…….. Non-Petitioners/ Contemptnors
Versus
1. Shri Shaikhar Dutt,
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. Brigadier, Shri S.P.S. Menon, Station Commandar, H.Q. 61(I)
Sub Area, Jaipur.
3. Major Jisukh Ram, Area Commandar 4 Jat, Jaipur
4. Shri K.J.S. Chouhan, Defence Estate Officer,
Jaipur Circle, Jaipur
5. Shri S.S. Rathore, A.G.E.G. Project, (M.E.S.) Jaipur.
—-Non-Petitioners/ Contemptnors
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 62/2007
IN
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (9 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.590/2005
1. Shri BhanwarLal s/o Ganesh Jat,
R/o Village Jagannath Pura,
Tehsil & District – Jaipur
2. Shri Ghasi Lal (Ghasi Ram) S/o Ganesh Jat
R/o Village Jagannath Pura, Tehsil & District Jaipur
3. Shri Manna Lal S/o Mauji Ram, Died, through-
(i) Kalyan Sahay S/o Manna Lal Jat
(ii) Sohan Lal S/o Manna Lal Jat
(iii) Chotu s/o Manna Lal Jat
(iv) Ganga Ram s/o Manna Lal Jat
All are resident of Gram Jagannathpura, Tehsil & District Jaipur
4. Shri Mohru Lal S/o Mauji Raj, Died through
(i) Ram Niwas S/o Mohru Lal Jat
(ii) Shravan Lal S/o Mohru Lal Jat
(iii) Jagdish S/o Mohru Lal Jat
All are R/o Village Jagannathpura, Tehsil & District Jaipur
5. Shri Laxmi Narain s/o Shri Mauji Ram
R/o Village, Jagannathpura, Tehsil & District Jaipur.
—-Appellants
Versus
1. Shri Shekhar Dutt,
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. Brigadier, Shri S.P.S. Menon, Station Commandar, H.Q. 61(I)
Sub Area, Jaipur.
3. Major Jisukh Ram, Area Commandar 4 Jat, Jaipur
4. Shri K.J.S. Chouhan, Defence Estate Officer,
Jaipur Circle, Jaipur
5. Shri S.S. Rathore, A.G.E.G. Project, (M.E.S.) Jaipur.
—-Non-Petitioners/ Contemptnors
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor
General assisted by Mr. C.S. Sinha.
Mr. Devesh Yadav.
Mr. Rajat Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amin Ali.
Mr. Mahendra Shandilya.
Mr. Anurag Shukla.
Mr. Kunwar Ashok Veer Singh Nirwan.
Mr. Sumit Kumar.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (10 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
Mr. Mirza Shoaib.
Ms. Sunita Saini.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
Order
Reportable
26/03/2025
In D.B. Special Appeals Writ Nos.590/2005, 649/2005,
739/2005, 828/2005 & 1014/2005:-
1. In the present litigation before us, there are five appeals
arising out of the judgment dated 01.06.2005 passed by the
learned Single Judge including the respective orders passed by the
revenue authorities below, that apart there are two contempt
petitions with regard to the orders passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in SAW-590/2005 & 1014/2005. Since, the
controversy/question raised herein is common, therefore, on the
request of counsel for the parties, all the matters have been heard
together and are being decided by the present common order.
2. So far as the appeals are concerned, the record reveals that
under challenge in the appeals filed by the Union of India, through
Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi (hereinafter to be
referred as Union of India) is the judgment dated 01.06.2005
passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions
filed by the Union of India challenging the orders passed by the
revenue authorities below-Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue
Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue dated
20.06.2001, 10.01.2003 & 19.08.2003 were dismissed.
3. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the land in
dispute belongs to ‘Rajputana Lancers’ – State Land of erstwhile
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (11 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]Jaipur since 1950 and the possession of the said land in dispute
was handed over to the Ministry of Defence on 04.12.1950 and
the entry with regard to the said Land was also made in Military
Land Records/Register (hereinafter to be referred as ‘MLR’). A
survey, thereafter, of the land in dispute was also conducted by
the Union of India through their Local Officers i.e. Military Officers
along with the Revenue Officer of the State of Rajasthan and upon
thorough inspection they prepared the record on 25.10.1960,
which depicts certain illegal encroachments over the land in
dispute and it was also found that those lands belonged to village
Khatipura measuring about 105 Bighas and 18 Biswas as well as
Village Jagannath Pura measuring about 154 Bighas and 19
Biswas, thus the total disputed land comes to 260 Bighas & 17
Biswas. After inspection, since certain encroachments were found,
the Estate Officer issued notices to the respondents/their
predecessors (alleged encroachers) for their eviction under
Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1958 and thereafter when the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971) (hereinafter to be
referred as the Act of 1971) came into force, again the notices
were issued by the Estate Officer and ultimately the Estate Officer
passed the order of eviction on 05.12.1972 as provided under
Section 5 of the Act of 1971 against the unauthorized occupants
i.e. alleged encroachers (certain respondents herein). The said
order came to be challenged by the respondents before the Sub-
Divisional Officer under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,
1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act of 1955’) and prayed
therein to declare the order passed by the Estate Officer as null &
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (12 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
void on the pretext that the Estate Officer has no right/jurisdiction
to pass the order of eviction in the matter as according to the
respondents the case falls under the provisions of the Act of 1955.
The Sub-Divisional Officer vide its order dated 20.06.2001 decreed
the suit in favour of the respondents, which was challenged by the
Union of India before the Revenue Appellate Authority by filing the
appeal which by its judgment dated 10.01.2003 dismissed the
appeal filed on behalf of the Union of India. The said order of the
Revenue Appellate Authority again came to be challenged by the
Union of India before the Board of Revenue by filing of Second
Appeal which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its
order dated 19.08.2003.
4. Thus, being aggrieved by all the three orders passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20.06.2001, the Revenue Appellate
Authority dated 10.01.2003 and the Board of Revenue dated
19.08.2003, the Union of India approached the learned Single
Judge of this Court by filing five separate writ petitions. The
learned Single Judge after hearing both the counsels for the
parties vide its common judgment dated 01.06.2005 dismissed all
the writ petitions filed on behalf of the Union of India. In the
background as stated above, the Union of India is before us in five
separate special appeals assailing the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 01.06.2005 as well as two contempt petitions
arise out of orders passed in two of those appeals.
5. Service upon all the respondents and their legal
representatives has been effected through notices issued by this
Court as well as through paper publication in the Daily Newspaper
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (13 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
dated 15.02.2025. Copy of the said news paper has been taken on
record vide order dated 17.02.2025.
6. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of
the Union of India assailing the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge as well as all the Revenue Courts below, firstly
argued that all the revenue authorities below had no jurisdiction to
entertain the suit as there being lack of jurisdiction since the
matter clearly falls under the Act of 1971 not under the Act of
1955. During the course of arguments, he put much emphasis
upon the provisions of Section 5, 9, 10 and 15 of the Act of 1971,
which provides for eviction of the unauthorized occupants, as well
as filing of the appeal and states about attaining finality of the
orders and also the bar of jurisdiction of the courts with regard to
assailing the order of the Estate Officer.
7. For the purpose of minute scrutiny of the controversy raised
herein, we consider it appropriate to have a look over the
provisions of Sections 5, 9, 10 & 15 of the Act of 1971, thus the
same are quoted as below :-
Section 5 :-
5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants.–[(1) If,
after considering the cause, if any, shown by
any person in pursuance of a notice under
section 4 and any evidence produced by him in
support of the same and after personal
hearing, if any, given under sub-clause (ii) of
clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4, the
estate officer is satisfied that the public
premises are in unauthorised occupation, the
estate officer shall make an order of eviction,
for reasons to be recorded therein, directing
that the public premises shall be vacated, on
such date as may be specified in the order but
not later than fifteen days from the date of the
order, by all persons who may be in occupation
thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (14 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]of the order to be affixed on the outer door or
some other conspicuous part of the public
premises:
Provided that every order under this sub-
section shall be made by the estate officer as
expeditiously as possible and all endeavour
shall be made by him to issue the order within
fifteen days of the date specified in the notice
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), as
the case may be, of section 4.]
(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply
with the order of eviction 3 [on or before the
date specified in the said order or within fifteen
days of the date of its publication under sub-
section (1), whichever is later,] the estate
officer or any other officer duly authorised by
the estate officer in this behalf [may after the
date so specified or after the expiry of the
period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that
person] from, and take possession of, the
public premises and may, for that purpose, use
such force as may be necessary.
[Provided that if the estate officer is satisfied,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, that
there exists any compelling reason which
prevents the person from vacating the
premises within fifteen days, the estate officer
may grant another fifteen days from the date
of expiry of the order under sub-section (1) to
the person to vacate the premises.]
Section 9 :-
9. Appeals.–(1) An appeal shall lie from every
order of the estate officer made in respect of
any public premises under 3 [section 5 or
section 5B] 4 [or section 5C] or section 7 to an
appellate officer who shall be the district judge
of the district in which the public premises are
situate or such other judicial officer in that
district of not less than ten years standing as
the district judge may designate in this behalf.
2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be
preferred,–
(a) in the case of an appeal from an order
under section 5, [within twelve days] from the
date of publication of the order under sub-
section (1) of that section; ***
(b) in the case of an appeal from an order
[under section 5B or section 7, within twelve
days] from the date on which the order is
communicated to the appellant; [and]
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (15 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
[(c) in the case of an appeal from an order
under section 5C, within twelve days from the
date of such order:]
[Provided that the appellate officer may
entertain the appeal in exceptional cases after
the expiry of the said period, if he is satisfied
for reasons to be recorded in writing that there
was compelling reasons which prevented the
person from filing the appeal in time.]
(3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order
of the estate officer, the appellate officer may
stay the enforcement of that order for such
period and on such conditions as he deems fit:
[Provided that where the construction or
erection of any building or other structure or
fixture or execution of any other work was not
completed on the day on which an order was
made under section 5B for the demolition or
removal of such building or other structure or
fixture, the appellate officer shall not make any
order for the stay of enforcement of such
order, unless such security, as may be
sufficient in the opinion of the appellate officer,
has been given by the appellant for not
proceeding with such construction, erection or
work pending the disposal of the appeal.]
[(4) Every appeal under this section shall be
disposed of by the appellate officer as
expeditiously as possible and every endeavour
shall be made to dispose of the appeal finally
within one month from the date of filing the
appeal, after providing the parties an
opportunity of being heard.]
(5) The costs of any appeal under this section
shall be in the discretion of the appellate
officer.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a
presidency-town shall be deemed to be a
district and the chief judge or the principal
judge of the city civil court therein shall be
deemed to be the district judge of the district.
10. Finality of orders.–Save as otherwise
expressly provided in this Act, every order
made by an estate officer or appellate officer
under this Act shall be final and shall not be
called in question in any original suit,
application or execution proceeding and no
injunction shall be granted by any court or
other authority in respect of any action taken(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (16 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]or to be taken in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under this Act.
[15. Bar of jurisdiction.–No court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding
in respect of–
(a) the eviction of any person who is in
unauthorised occupation of any public
premises, or
(b) the removal of any building, structure or
fixture or goods, cattle or other animal from
any public premises under section 5A, or
(c) the demolition of any building or other
structure made, or ordered to be made, under
section 5B, or
[(cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of
any public premises under section 5C, or]
(d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-
section (1) of section 7 or damages payable
under sub-section (2), or interest payable
under sub-section (2A), of that section, or
(e) the recovery of–
(i) costs of removal of any building, structure
or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal
under section 5A, or
(ii) expenses of demolition under section 5B, or
(iii) costs awarded to the Central Government
or statutory authority under sub-section (5) of
section 9, or
(iv) any portion of such rent, damages, costs
of removal, expenses of demolition or costs
awarded to the Central Government or the
statutory authority.].
8. Learned Additional Solicitor General while making reference
of the aforesaid provisions argued that the respondents ought to
have approached under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 to the District
Judge by filing the appeal against the order passed by the Estate
officer which is the remedy provided under the Act of 1971 but
instead of adopting proper course under the law they chose to
approach the Revenue Court while Section 15 of the Act of 1971
clearly speaks about the bar of Jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (17 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
with regard to the orders passed under the Act of 1971 by the
Estate Officer.
9. His further argument is that as per Section 16 (vii) of the Act
of 1955 the land which is set apart for military encamping grounds
is a Military land which has been handed over to the Ministry of
Defence by the erstwhile Jaipur State, therefore, no suit in regard
to that land shall be maintainable before the Revenue Court under
the Act of 1955.
10. We consider it appropriate to quote Section 16 (vii) of the
Act of 1955 which reads as under:-
“(vii) land which, at the commencement of this
Act or at any time thereafter, is set apart for
military encamping grounds.”
11. He also argued that all the documents with regard to entry of
the land in the MLR as well as the documents relating to handing
over possession of the land in dispute and taking over the
certificate as well as the copy of the notices issued by the Estate
Officer and the orders passed by the Estate Officer were produced
before the Revenue courts below but all the revenue authorities
below failed to consider these documents to the effect that the
land belongs to the Union of India, thus there was lack of
jurisdiction for the revenue authorities to entertain the suit. He
also argued that any judgment or decree passed by the Court
other than the Court prescribed under the Act of 1971 shall be in
nullity and therefore prayed for quashing of the order passed by
the learned Single Judge as also the orders passed by all the
Revenue Authorities below.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (18 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
12. In support of the contentions, learned Additional Solicitor
General relied upon certain judgments as referred below :-
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India
& Anr. Vs. S. Narasimhulu Naidu (dead) through legal
representatives & Ors. reported in 2021 (20) SCC 321, in
para No.47, held as under:-
“47.Apart from the fact that the transfer of title
in favour of the Union is complete when the
possession was delivered, but even thereafter,
the military land register and general land
register produced by the appellants show the
possession of the appellants over such land.
The military land register and general land
register are public documents within the
meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) containing the
records of the acts of the sovereign authority
i.e., the Union as well as official body. Still
further, Section 114 of the Evidence Act grants
presumption of correctness being an official act
having been regularly performed. Therefore, in
the absence of any evidence to show that such
records were not maintained properly, the
official record containing entries of ownership
and possession would carry the presumption of
correctness. In view of the transfer of land on
10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession
on 19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of
possession thereof, it leads to the unequivocal
finding that appellants are owners and in
possession of the suit land.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Agro
Foods Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2008 (7) SCC
748 in para No.17, held as under:-
“17.All irregular or erroneous or even illegal
orders cannot be held to be null and void as
there is a fine distinction between the orders
which are null and void and orders which are
irregular, wrong or illegal. Where an authority
making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such
order would be without jurisdiction, null, non
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (19 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
est and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of
an authority goes to the root of the matter and
strikes at its very authority to pass any order
and such a defect cannot be cured even by
consent of the parties. (See:Kiran Singh & Ors.
Vs. Chaman Paswan & Ors.1). However,
exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner
cannot result in a nullity – it is an illegality,
capable of being cured in a duly constituted
legal proceedings.”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Syed Qamarali reported in 1961 SC
Online SC 9 :1967 SLR 228 in para No.21, held as under:-
“21.We therefore hold that the order of
dismissal having been made in breach of a
mandatory provision of the rules subject to
which only the power of punishment under
section 7 could be exercised, is totally invalid.
The order of dismissal had therefore no legal
existence and it was not necessary for the
respondent to have the order set aside by a
court. The defence of limitation which was
based only on the contention that the order
had to be set aside by a court before it became
invalid must therefore be rejected.”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Singh &
Ors. Vs. Birbal & Ors. reported in 2006 (5) SCC 353 in para
No.16, held as under:-
“16. When a document is valid, no question
arises of its cancellation. When a document is
void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the
same would not be necessary as the same is
non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a
nullity.”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Bhimabai
Mahadeo Kambekar (d) through LR Vs. Arthur Import and
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (20 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
Export Company & Ors. reported in 2019 (3) SCC 191 in paras
No.7 & 8, held as under:-
“7. The law on the question of mutation in the
revenue records pertaining to any land and
what is its legal value while deciding the rights
of the parties is fairly well settled by a series of
decisions of this Court.
8. This Court has consistently held that
mutation of a land in the revenue records does
not create or extinguish the title over such land
nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It
only enables the person in whose favour
mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in
question. (See Sawarni(Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur,
(1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs.
Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7
SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591).”
18. In counter to the submissions made by learned Additional
Solicitor General, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
respondents argued that it was only the Revenue Court which has
jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to the lands as per the Act
of 1955. They further argued that the land in dispute is recorded
under the Khatedari of the respondents and the said land does not
fall within the definition of Public Premises. They further argued
that the Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly recorded a finding of
fact that the provisions of the Act of 1971 are not applicable with
regard to the land in dispute. They further argued that the Union
of India has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction under the Act of 1971
and there was no need to file appeal under the Act of 1971. They
further argued that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded
by all the revenue courts below in favour of the respondents and
the same are not required to be disturbed by this Court. They
further argued that the Union of India by using their arbitrary
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (21 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
powers has forcefully taken the possession of the land in dispute
from the respondents and they have rightly prayed to the Revenue
Courts with regard to their legal rights and lastly prayed for
dismissal of the appeals filed by Union of India.
19. We have heard the respective arguments of both the sides
and carefully examined the material on record.
20. The sole crux of the arguments/controversy raised before us
appears to be as to whether the Revenue Courts have jurisdiction
to hear and decide the suit with regard to a land which belongs to
the Ministry of Defence initiating the proceedings by the Union of
India through Estate Officer for eviction under the Act of 1971
when remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Estate
Officer is available under the Act of 1971.
21. Upon close analysis of the relevant provisions, we are of the
considered view that once the proceedings have been initiated
under the Act of 1971, the remedy to challenge the order passed
by the Estate Officer lies only under Section 9 of the Act of 1971
by way of appeal before the Appellate Officer i.e. the District
Judge, who alone is the authority empowered to examine as to
whether the order passed by the Estate Officer is correct.
22. Section 15 of the Act of 1971 speaks about the bar of
jurisdiction and according to which no Court shall have jurisdiction
to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of orders of eviction
passed by the Estate Officer, therefore, in our considered view, all
the Revenue Courts have committed serious illegality in
entertaining the suit filed against the Union of India because the
remedy lies only by filing of appeal before the learned District
Judge against the orders passed by the Estate Officer.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (22 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
23. On perusal of Section 10 of the Act of 1971 we find that
every order made by the Estate Officer or appellate officer under
this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any
original suit, application or execution proceedings and no
injunction shall be granted by any Court.
24. According to Section 16 (vii) of the Act of 1955 no Khatedari
rights shall accrue for the lands which at the commencement of
the Act of 1955 or any time thereafter is set apart for Military
encamping grounds. Admittedly, the land in dispute was handed
over to the Ministry of Defence for the purpose of Military
Establishment and the same was also recorded in the MLR,
therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Union of India (supra), we are of the
considered opinion that all the Courts below have committed
serious illegality in entertaining the suit proceedings and passing
of the respective orders.
25. The argument of the respondents that the land in dispute is
not covered under the definition of Section 2 of the Act of 1971 is
of no substance because the land in dispute is covered under the
definition of Public Premises as the land in dispute belongs to
Central Government i.e. Ministry of Defence.
26. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in which it has been observed that certain grounds
have been taken for the first time, this fact is not correct because
the Union of India has taken objections from very beginning with
regard to nature of the land that the Revenue Courts have no
jurisdiction and the documents with regard to handing over the
possession of the land in dispute were also filed by Union of India
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13854-DB] (23 of 23) [SAW-590/2005]
at the initial stage before the Revenue Court, therefore, in our
considered view, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
27. In view of what has been discussed by us in detail above, we
are of the considered view that the Revenue Courts have no
jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit where orders of eviction
have been passed by the Estate Officer under the Act of 1971.
Therefore, we allow these appeals and set aside the order passed
by the learned Single Judge dated 01.06.2005 and the writ
petitions filed on behalf of the Union of India are allowed as
prayed therein and all the orders passed by the respective
revenue authority below-Board of Revenue dt.19.08.2003,
Revenue Appellate Authority dt.10.01.2003 and Sub-Divisional
Officer dt.20.06.2001 are hereby quashed and set aside.
In D.B. Civil Contempt Petition Nos.61/2007 & 62/2007:-
In view of the detailed judgment passed in above appeals,
these contempt petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/275-281
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 09:22:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)