Jurisdictional facts must be established before eviction under land-utilisation law; disputed leases bar dispossession orders.

The Supreme Court held that a technical objection to maintainability did not bar a constitutional challenge where the petitioners directly questioned a Collector's power to dispossess them without lawful process. On the merits, the Collector could not order eviction under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 unless it was first established that the persons proceeded against were lessees under the Act and that the land was in fact governed by it. Because no patta or lease was produced and the applicability of the Act was itself disputed, the foundational jurisdictional facts had to be determined before any dispossession could follow. The dispossession orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the Collector's orders was maintainable under the constitutional remedies invoked. (ii) Whether the Collector could direct dispossession under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949, when the existence of valid leases and the very applicability of the Act were disputed.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the Collector's orders was maintainable under the constitutional remedies invoked.

Analysis: The objection to maintainability was treated as technical and was not supported by authority. The proceedings also raised a direct challenge to the Collector's power to deprive the petitioners of possession without lawful process. In that setting, the constitutional challenge was entertained.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector could direct dispossession under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949, when the existence of valid leases and the very applicability of the Act were disputed.

Analysis: The power of eviction under the Act was held to apply only where it was clear, or undisputed, that the person proceeded against was a lessee under Section 5. On the record, no patta or lease was produced, the source of the alleged allotment was uncertain, rival claims of ownership and panchayat rights were raised, and the Collector could not assume jurisdiction without first determining whether the Act applied at all. The Court further indicated that the Collector could examine the foundational questions relating to the alleged lease, compensation, legal status from possession, and competing claims before taking any further step.

Conclusion: The Collector had no basis to order dispossession on the disputed material and had to first determine whether the lands were governed by the Act and whether valid leases existed.

Final Conclusion: The dispossession orders were set aside, and further proceedings under the Act were restrained unless and until it was established that the lands remained governed by that Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A Collector acting under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 cannot direct eviction unless the existence of a lease under the Act and the Act's applicability to the land are first established; where those foundational facts are disputed, the authority must determine its jurisdiction before proceeding.

---