Rangian Harijan Co-op. Collective Farming Society, Khanna vs Estate Officer, Jal.

J.V. Gupta, J.

This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge dated 14th August, 1985, whereby he dismissed an appeal filed u/s 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, in limine. The appeal has been dismissed mainly on the ground that it was not accompanied by any resolution of the petitionerSociety directing itself to prefer an appeal against the impugned order of the Estate Officer. Apart from that, the learned Additional District Judge also made observations on merits without sending for the record and without issuing any notice to the respondents.

At the time of motion hearing, it was contended that the power of attorney was signed by all the members of the Society, and that, the resolution dated 5th August, 1985, was there but was not produced. In any case, the same could be produced if so directed. A copy of the said resolution was filed with this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Rule 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971, provides that on receipt of the appeal after calling for and pursuing the record of the proceedings before the Estate Officer, the appellate officer shall appoint time and place of the hearing of the appeal and shall give notice thereof to the Estate Officer against whose orders the appeal is preferred. According to the learned counsel, this rule was never complied with, as the appellate officer never called for the records of the proceedings before the Estate Officer, and there being noncompliance with the said rule, the appeal could not be dismissed on merits and, thus, the order was liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he referred to Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. District Judge, Durg, 1978 M.P.L.J. 863.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Rule 9 referred to above reads as under :

``9. Procedure in appeals. (1) An appeal under Section 9 of the Act shall be in writing, shall set forth concisely the grounds of objection to the order appealed against, and shall be accompanied by a copy of such order.

(2) On receipt of the appeal calling for and perusing the record of the proceedings before the Estate Officer, the appellate officer shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of the appeal and shall give notice thereof to the Estate Officer against whose orders the appeal is preferred, to the appellant and to the head of the department or authority in administrative control of the premises.''''

It is not disputed that the records of the proceedings before the Estate Officer were never called for by the learned Additional District Judge. Apart from that the power of attorney filed along with the memorandum of appeal was signed by all the members. Not only that, resolution dated 5th August, 1985, did exist and could be filed if so directed. However, the copy of the said resolution was filed in this Court. In these circumstances the appeal could not be dismissed on the short ground that the same was not accompanied by any resolution of the Society. However, the petitioner is directed to file the copy of the said resolution before the Appellate Officer, i.e., the Additional District Judge. In the result, the petition succeeds, the impugned order dated 14th August,1985, is set aside and the case sent back to the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, for deciding the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Records of the case be sent back forthwith to the said Court.

The parties, through counsel, are directed to appear in the said Court on 27th January, 1986. It is further directed that the appeal be dispose of within two months therefrom as the matter is of urgent nature.