Smt. Basanti vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9107 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8465/2022

1. Smt. Basanti W/o Jasraj Soni, Aged About 63 Years, Kabir Ashram Bagechi, Baiji Talab Ke Pass, Jalori Gate Ke Andar, Jodhpur.

2. Bharat Soni S/o Late Jasraj Soni, Aged About 43 Years, Kabir Ashram Bagechi, Baiji Talab Ke Pass, Jalori Gate Ke Andar, Jodhpur.

3. Kamal Kishore Soni S/o Late Jasraj Soni, Aged About 40 Years, Kabir Ashram Bagechi, Baiji Talab Ke Pass, Jalori Gate Ke Andar, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Inspector, Devsthan Department, Jodhpur.

2. Estate Officer, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr S.P.Sharma
                                Mr Kaushal Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr Dinesh Kumar Joshi



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                          Judgment / Order

13/07/2022

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India is filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with

the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Additional District Judge

No.6, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter to be referred as 'the appellate

court'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been

dismissed. The said appeal was filed by the petitioners being

aggrieved with the judgment dated 17.01.2022 passed by the

Estate Officer, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be

(2 of 6) [CW-8465/2022]

referred as 'the Estate Officer'), whereby the application filed on

behalf of the State of Rajasthan through the Inspector, Devasthan

Department has been allowed.

Brief facts of the case are that the Inspector, Devasthan

Department filed an application before the Estate Officer in the

year 2007 under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises

(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be

referred as 'the Act of 1964') alleging that Institution Kabir Panthi

Bagechi, Jodhpur (for short 'the premises in question' hereinafter)

is the property of Devasthan Department and as such is a public

premises and the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the

premises in question since 2007.

It is stated that notices were issued to the petitioners

on 21.06.2007 to vacate their possession from the premises in

question but despite that the same has not been vacated by them.

It is prayed that the unauthorised occupation be evicted from the

premises in question and the petitioners be directed to pay rent to

the tune of Rs.2000/- per month from 01.07.2007 with interest at

the rate of 18%.

The application for eviction preferred on behalf of the

Devasthan Department was contested by the petitioners and a

reply to the said application was filed by them stating that the

premises in question belongs to them and it is not a public

premises. It is alleged that initially the premises in question was

constructed by Mahant Prem Das and after his death in the year

1997, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner

Nos. 2 and 3, Jasraj Soni was anointed as Chela of Mahant Prem

Das of the premises in question and since then the petitioners are

(3 of 6) [CW-8465/2022]

in possession of the premises in question. In support of their

claim, copies of electricity bills and water bills etc. were produced.

The Estate Officer on 23.09.2011 passed an order for

evicting the petitioners from the premises in question. It appears

that the petitioners were not provided any opportunity to produce

their evidence and, therefore, an application was moved on their

behalf, which was allowed and the petitioners were permitted to

produce the evidence in support of their claim. An affidavit of

petitioner No.1 was filed on 29.11.2011 and she was cross-

examined on 01.02.2012, however, the Estate Officer vide order

dated 21.09.2012, without appreciating the said evidence, had

ordered that as no new facts have been emerged from the

evidence produced on behalf of the petitioners, the order of

eviction dated 23.09.2011 is maintained.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.09.2012, the

petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1964

before the appellate court, which came to be allowed vide order

dated 12.09.2019 and the matter was remanded to the Estate

Officer to decide the eviction application afresh after providing

opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Pursuant to

the said remand order, the matter was taken up by the Estate

Officer. No one had appeared on behalf of the Devasthan

Department before the Estate Officer and after hearing counsel for

the petitioners ex parte, the Estate Officer passed the impugned

order dated 17.01.2022 and ordered for eviction of the petitioners

from the premises in question.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.01.2022, the

petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate court, which

(4 of 6) [CW-8465/2022]

came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.05.2022.

Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently

argued that the premises in question cannot be termed as 'public

premises' as the petitioners have produced several documentary

evidence such as electricity bill, water bill etc. in support of their

claim that they are not in unauthorised occupation of the premises

in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

the premises in question was constructed by Mahant Prem Das

and after his death, husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 was anointed as Mahant. It is submitted

that the petitioners are owners of the premises in question but the

courts below without taking into consideration the evidence

produced by them have illegally passed the impugned orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, submitted that

the impugned orders are illegal and perverse and, therefore, it is

prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders

be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents has argued that the premises in question belongs to

Devasthan Department and the same has been published in

Official Gazette of State of Rajasthan on 25.06.1981, whereby the

premises in question is declared as Devasthan Department's

property.

Learned counsel for the respondent has further

submitted that from the evidence of petitioner No.1 produced

before the Estate Officer, it is clear that the premises in question

belongs to the Devasthan Department as the petitioner No.1 has

(5 of 6) [CW-8465/2022]

admitted in her cross-examination that Kabir Panthi Bagechi is

controlled by the Devasthan Department and the Devasthan

Department is the owner of the same. She has also admitted that

the Devasthan Department has not appointed her on any post and

has also not rented out or handed over the said property to her.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of

the Gazette Notification as well as the admission of the petitioner

No.1, it is clear that the premises in question falls within the

definition of "public premises" as mentioned in Section 2(b)(vii) of

the Act of 1964. It is submitted that taking into consideration the

Gazette Notification and the admission of the petitioner No.1, the

Estate Officer as well as the appellate court have not committed

any illegality in passing the impugned orders.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused

the material available on record.

From the Gazette Notification dated 25.06.1981, it is

clear that the premises in question is a property of Devasthan

Department and the same is not disputed by the petitioners. It is

also not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 has submitted her

affidavit before the Estate Officer in support of her claim and she

was cross-examined in which she specifically admitted that the

premises in question belongs to the Devasthan Department and

the department has not rented the same to her and has also not

handed it over to her.

In view of the Gazette Notification and clear admission

of the petitioner No.1, I am of the opinion that the Estate Officer

as well as the appellate court have not committed any illegality in

passing the impugned orders.

(6 of 6) [CW-8465/2022]

Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the

same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

95-masif/-PS

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)