Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA SARKAR, J.
L. Padma Kumari Amma — Appellant
Versus
Estate Officer — Respondent
C.O. No.23 of 2018
Decided on : 16-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. KMB Jayapal
For the Respondent: Mrs. Anjili Nag
The Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the Estate Officer was empowered to act under the Public Premises Act, 1971.
Headnote:
Eviction - Jurisdiction - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 9(1), Regulation 202(8) of Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 - Acts and sections referenced: Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 9(1), Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 - Regulation 202(8)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's daughter was allotted a quarter on compassionate grounds, and the petitioner occupied the land behind the quarter without permission. The Estate Officer initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act, 1971. The petitioner appealed the eviction order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Estate Officer was empowered to act, and the petitioner's contentions were not valid. The court upheld the eviction order.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge, authority of the Estate Officer, applicability of Regulation 202(8), pendency of a civil suit, and validity of the eviction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Estate Officer was empowered to act, and the pendency of a civil suit did not bar the eviction proceedings under the special statute.
Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed, and the eviction order was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Sarkar, J.
This revisional application arises out of an order dated October 04, 2018 passed in Estate Appeal No. 01 of 2014 by the learned Additional District Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair affirming the eviction order dated November 01, 2013 passed by the Additional General Manager ( Admin & HR)/Estate Officer in eviction case No. DQ/2. The order impugned to this application has been challenged on the following grounds:-
(a) That the learned Additional District Judge did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against order of eviction in view of the bar prescribed under Section 9(1) of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (herein after refer to as the said Act of 1971).
(b) In the absence of a notification under section 3 of the said Act the officer who passed the eviction order as an Estate Officer could not have acted as the Estate Officer and this point was not taken into consideration by the learned Additional District Judge.
(c) That the Court below failed to take into consideration Regulation 202 (8) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (herein after refer to as the said regulation).
(d) In view of the Regulation 202(8), the Court below ought to have set aside the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer until the suit filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court at Port Blair was disposed of finally.
(e) That the list of encroachment published by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (herein after refer to as BSNL) did not contain the land in respect of which the eviction proceedings were initiated.
(f) The land in question was not settled in respect of the Post and Telegraph Department as per the procedure prescribed in rule 175 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue & Land Reforms Rules, 1968 (herein after refer to as the said Rules).
2. The Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, the Estate Officer submits that under section 9(1) learned District Judge and the learned Additional District Judge are equal and have identical power and as such, the learned Additional District Judge was competent to pass the order impugned to this revisional application.
3. She further submitted that from the documents filed before the learned court below along with written objection by the opposite party, it would appear that a proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District for correction of the quantum of area under the BSNL, in the land bearing survey No. 2342/4 situated at Aberdeen Village. The BSNL was a company in incorporated under the Companys Act, to which the business of providing the telecom services in the country, and as also the maintenance of telecom towers etc. was transferred by a notification dated January 23, 2001 issued by the Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication. All asset and liabilities were transferred to BSNL. As such, BSNL with effect from October 01, 2001 had become the recorded tenant of the aforementioned land, in place of Post and Telegraph Department, which has been allotted the disputed land vide an order No. VI/18-46/65 dated July 24, 1965 for construction of staff quarters. Subsequently the same was handed over to BSNL.
4. That by a notification dated September 07, 2009 issued by the Central Government, officers of BSNL were designated to exercise the powers and duties of an Estate Officer. At serial No. 209 of the notification, the Assistant General Manager/Administration was appointed as the Estate Officer for the area being premises under the administrative control of the Chief General Manager, Andaman & Nicobar Circle and as such, the Assistant General Manager who passed the eviction order has been designated to act as the Estate Officer.
5. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party also relies on an order dated November 11, 2014 by which a learned single Judge of this court in a
