4 thereafter preferred two Letters Patent Appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court.
On 16 5 1973 the Estate Officer proceeded against respondent No.
Against this part of the order the appellant is in appeal before us.
4 was granted lease in respect of plot Nos.
Respondent No.
Subsequently, the said order on appeal preferred by respondent No.
4 from the premises in dispute.
After passing of the said order, the State Government on 21st July, 1982 allotted the premises in favour of the appellant herein on payment of Rs.
So far as the other Letters Patent Appeal relating to allotment in favour of the appellant was companycerned the same was allowed and judgment of learned single Judge was set aside and the matter was sent back to Revenue Secretary for companysideration afresh.
27A and 28A situated at Roulki, Bhakshi Nagar, Jammu on a monthly rent of Rs.
The lease deed provided that on a numberice being given, the lessee would vacate the premises.
4 and found that he is an unauthorised occupant.
4 being of an unauthorised occupant was number entitled to companytinue in possession over the land.
25,000/ per kanal.
4 for eviction under the J. K. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act.
Thereafter respondent No.
Subsequently, the State of Jammu and Kashmir determined the lease and asked the lessee to vacate the premises.
4 filed two writ petitions challenging the order of the learned District Judge rejecting his appeal as well as the order of allotment passed in favour of the appellant.
4 was set aside by learned District Judge.
Consequently, the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction of respondent No.
However, the High Court after disposing of the appeals directed that the order of eviction shall number be executed till the matter is decided by the Revenue Secretary.
4 is an unauthorised occupant.
The father of respondent No.
Leave granted.
The said appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge.
The High Court did number interfere with the appeals preferred by respondent No.
On remand the Estate Officer again heard respondent No.
4 thereafter preferred an appeal against the order of Estate Officer before the District Judge.
Respondent No.
4 passed an order of eviction after having found that respondent No.
The Estate Officer after hearing respondent No.
