Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act cannot resolve bona fide title disputes, which must be adjudicated in a civil court, ensuring respect for legal authority and due process.

JUDGMENT

V.C. Daga, J.

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 31st July, 2001, (the impugned notice) issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners under Sections 4 (1) and 2B(i) of the Public Premises Premises Act"), whereby and whereunder the petitioners are called upon to show cause why the order of eviction should not be made against them, holding them to be unauthorised occupants, under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. According to the petitioners, the impugned notice is without authority of law, without jurisdiction and ultra virus the Public Premises Act and it involves serious disputed questions of title to the premises comprising of the land admeasuring 21,168 sq.ft. ("the said land") out of the larger property (including residential bungalow) admeasuring in all about 1.52 acres situated at Survey No. 417, B. No. 17, Dr. Coyaji Road (formerly known as Elphinston Road), Pune-411 001 ("the subject property").

PAST HISTORY :

2. The present litigation has a chequered past history. The respondent-Union of India through the Under Secretary to the Government for and on behalf of the President of India had addressed a notice dated 21st January, 1971 to late Kawasji Kaikhushru Sorabji Framji through whom the petitioners are claiming interest in the subject property being his legal heirs and representatives, seeking to resume the subject property alleging that the same belongs to the President of India and that the same was held by the noticee late Framji on "Old Grant Terms" under which Government was entitled to resume the said land and bungalow a portion of which was under requisition of the Government.

3. The noticee late Framji filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 634/1974 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the aforesaid notice dated 21st January, 1971 claiming to be the owner of the said property sought to be resumed by the Government of India. The main challenge to the notice dated 21st January, 1971 was on the ground that it threatened resumption of the petitioners' property without any authority of law and that it was given without observing principles of natural justice. The petitioner's case was that the property was purchased by his father Kaikhushroo Sorabji Framji from one Mohomedbhoy Hajibhoy under a conveyance dated 28th November, 1923. The said Mohd Hajibhoy had purchased the said property from one Burjorji Gustadji and Cooverbhai Homi Karani by a conveyance dated 1st March, 1920 in a public auction held on 12th October, 1919. According to the late Framji, the said land was a freehold land and that it was never held by him or his predecessors in title on any Military or Cantonment Tenure or under any grant or licence from the Government of India or east India Company.

4. On being noticed, the present respondents had appeared in that petition and filed their affidavit in reply dated 24th September, 1971 contending that the land belonged to them and was the property of the Central Government. It was resumable at the pleasure of the Central Government as the same was held by the petitioner late Framji and his predecessors in title on Old Grant Terms (Ordinary Cantonment Tenure) under the Government General Order No. 14 dated 6th January, 1827.

5. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention similar notice of resumption was issued to MR Phiroj Temulji Ankalesaria who challenged in Special Civil Application No. 1286/1972 ra