Mr. J.B. Pradhan v. No. 1 and 2

appeal stands dismissed, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and that of the Appellate Authority in this petition before this Court.

10. The petitioner has taken me to the evidence recorded during the. course of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. One of the witnesses, namely, Ms. H. Basnett, the then Administrative Officer, Sikkim PWD (R & a), who is alleged to have issued the AIlotment Order in favour of the petitioner, was examined. This witness admitted the signature on the original document which was produced before the Prescribed Authority. However, she SGPG- 1/Comp.4/High Court / 1000 Nos./13.08.201 1 -i i i: Case No Orders (s) with Signature (s) stated that if this order was issued, it should have been reflected in the office record as well and in absence of the original file, she is unable to say anything about the validity or otherwise of the allotment.

11. It seems that the Appellate Authority was also persuaded by this statement to make observation that the petitioner can find remedy in common law.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The entire case of the petitioner is based upon the allotment letter, referred to above. The auth-enticity, validity and existence of the allotment lette`r has to be established by the petitioner in order to claim the right upon the land which is admittedly the Government property. The Appellate Authority has rightly observed that due to limited scope of the appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act, the Appellate Authority is disabled to hold an effective and factual enquiry regarding the existence and validity of the allotment order.

13. I have no reason to disagree with these observations of the Appellate Authority. However, it is seen that on the one hand the Appellate Authority has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and at the same time the appeal has been rejected. The final order of dismissal 0 SGPG-1/Comp.4/High Court / 1000 Nos./13.08.2011 i- Case No Orders (s) with Signature (s) of the appeal has deprived the petitioner of availing the opportunity before the Civil Court.

14. The.jurisdiction of the judicial review of this Court in the matter of examination of the order of the administrative forums is of course limited. However, it is found that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to establish his case due to limited jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Act.

15. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing.to approach the Civil Court. In view of the observations made by the Appellate` Authority, the Petitioner has right to seek remedy ln Civil Law. Petitioner has already raised 5 1/2 storied building and is in possession thereof. It has also come on record that the petitioner's family is residing in the building and it was locked while his family members were inside the building. It is in the fitness of circumstances and in the interest of justice as also to provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case in Civil Court, the petitioner's possession is protected till the Civil Court decides the matter. SGPG- 1/Camp.4/High Court / 1000 Nos./13.08.2011 ii= SGPG- 1/Comp.4/High Court / 1000 Nos./13.08.2011