(Per G.S. Singhvi, C.J.)

This appeal is directed against order dated 9-11-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby she allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and quashed order dated 31-3-2006 passed by Estate Officer and Additional Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as the Estate Officer) under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, the 1971 Act).

2. A perusal of the record shows that by claiming themselves to be the owners of land comprised in Town Survey No.1961/1, Ward No.2, Block No.42 of Kakinada Town, the respondents filed Writ Petition No.1309 of 2006 against their threatened dispossession. The same was disposed of by this Court on 27 -1-2006 with the direction that the non petitioners (the appellants herein) shall not interfere or dispossess the petitioners (the respondents herein) from the land comprised in Town Survey No.1961/1 of Kakinada Town and Municipal Corporation without following the due process of law. Thereafter, the Estate Officer issued notices dated 16-2-2009 to the respondents under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act requiring them to vacate the land comprised in Town Survey/ R.S. No. 1961/2 from 14/2 to 14/11-12 between Kakinada Town and Kakinada Port Railway Station. Some of the respondents filed joint reply dated 20-2-2006 and claimed that in view of the joint survey report dated 31-12-2005, the Railways do not have any right over the land comprised in Town Survey No.1961/1 measuring Ac.22.00, which was owned by Sri Mandai Suryanarayana and others and, therefore, they cannot be treated as unauthorised occupants of public premises. Thereafter, the Estate Officer passed order dated 31-3-2006 and called upon them to vacate the premises within 15 days with the stipulation that if they fail to do so, then they will be evicted by use of such force, as may be necessary.

3. The respondents could have challenged the eviction order by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, but instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal, they directly filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by contending that the order passed by the Estate Officer is without jurisdiction and that the provisions of the 1971 Act could not have been invoked qua the land comprised in Town Survey No.1961/1. They claimed that the Railway property falls within Town Survey No.1961/2 and not in Town Survey No.1961/1 and, therefore, they cannot be treated as unauthorised occupants of the public premises.

4. In the counter filed by the non-petitioners (the appellants herein), an objection was taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioners have got an effective alternative remedy of appeal.

5. The learned Single Judge brushed aside the objection raised on behalf of the appellants to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioners by observing that the order of eviction suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge then examined the factual matrix of the case and concluded that the Estate Officer was not entitled to issue notice to the petitioners under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act or pass the order of eviction. For the sake of convenient reference, the relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:

"In the instant case, even according to the respondents, they are claiming title only in respect of T.S.No.1961 /2. The writ petitioners never made any claim in respect of T.S.No.1961/2, but their specific case is that they are in possession of different extents of land situated in T.S.No.1961/1 having purchased the same for valid consideration. They relied upon the Joint Survey Report dated 31-12-2005 which was signed by the Town Surveyor, Municipal Corporation, Kakinada; Town Planning Officer, Municipal Corporation, Kakinada Urban; Mandai Revenue Officer, Kakinada