SWAMI NATH CHOUHAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

The appellants claimed to bl:. the tenants of land measuring 4 Bighas, H 548

Mr. Manoj Saxena, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently contends that the appellants are protected under section 5 of the G Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, therefore, they cannot be evicted by issuing_ notice under rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. A perusal of the said provision shows that it protects tenants from eviction. To claim the protection of the said section, the appellants must show that they are the tenants. There are more reasons than one to hold that the appellants are not the tenants. First, the appellants claim tenancy through respondents H

550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. S S.C.R.

A s 5 to 7 who had no right, title or interest in the suit land in 1947 as it has been, noted above that the suit land was already acquired by the .first respondent as long back as in 1943. Secondly, the appellants were held to be encroachers in the earlier civil proceedings. Thirdly, the father of respondents 5 to 7 who was the original owner of the suit land, died in 1960. It is only B thereafter that. respondents 5 to 7 came into the ricture, as such they could not have leased out the suit land to the appellants in 1947. Be that as it may, the proceedings which gave rise to this appeal were initiated under rule 18 of the Settlement Rules which reads thus:

"18. Ejectment-{ I) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Deputy c Commissioner may eject any person from land over which no person has acquired the rights of a proprietor, landholder or settlement- holder."

A ~rusal of the rule shows that it empowers the Deputy Commissioner D to evict any person from land over which no person has acquired the right of a proprietor, landholder or settlement-holder. The Division Bench of the High Court, having referred to rule 18, held that the suit land was not acquired by a proprietor or landholder or settlement-holder within the meaning of the Settlement Rules.

E It is next contended that in the earlier suit proceedings, it was held that the appellants could be evicted by due process of law. In our view, ejecting the appellants under rule 18 of the Settlement Rules cannot but be due process of law. In view of this position, the fact that as on the date of issuance of the impugned notice, the first respondent did not have title to the F land in question is immaterial.

It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 that after the order under challenge in this appeal was passed on November 16, 1993, the State Government took over the possession of the land· in question and handed over the same to respondents 5 to 7 on March G 25, 1994. These facts are set oiit in the counter affidavit but they were not traversed by filing a rejoinder affidavit. On December I, 1994, this Court passed the order directing the parties to maintain status quo, which was long after the alleged handing over of possession. However, the appellants claim to be in possession and we do not propose to express any opinion H on this . aspect.

SWAMI NATH CHOUHAN v. U.0.1. 551 For these reasons, we find no illegality in the impugned order of the A Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal fails and it is, accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

The application for 4eletion of the name of Union of India from the array B of the respondents is dismissed.

RP. Appeal dismissed.