JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of ‘We Care’ Nursing Home in Uttarpara in the district of Hooghly, West Bengal. The petitioner seeks a mandamus on the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the Secretary, Ministry of Railways to cancel a notice issued by the Estate Officer on 29.3.2022 and an order passed by the Estate Officer on 23.6.2022. By the impugned notice dated 29.3.2022 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be evicted from the public premises mentioned in the schedule to the notice. The impugned order dated 23.6.2022 directed the petitioner to remove the building/immovable structure from the alleged public premises.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice and order primarily on the ground of jurisdiction of the authorities to issue the said notice and order. The petitioner has also taken the point of the premises not being “public premises” within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The reason given is that the said land was purchased by the predecessors in interest of the petitioner through a sale effectuated by the Calcutta High Court through the official receiver. The petitioner says that a notice under section 4 (1) of the 1971 Act can only be issued in respect of a land which comes within the meaning of section 2(e) and qualifies as public premises.

3. With regard to the point of jurisdiction, the impugned notice dated 29.3.2022 makes it clear that the said notice was issued under section 4(1) of the 1971 Act. The Estate Officer called upon the petitioner to show cause in pursuance of section 4(1) of the Act, as specifically mentioned in the notice. Section 4(1) comes into operation where the Estate Officer has the information that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that he should be evicted. The Estate Officer shall thereafter issue in the prescribed manner a notice in writing with regard to the unauthorised occupation within 7 days from the date of receipt of information and call upon the person to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made. The framework of the Act indicates that a show-cause issued under section 4(1) is followed by eviction of unauthorised occupants under section 5(1) of the Act which specifically provides that the Estate Officer, after considering the cause shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by the person in support of the cause, shall give the person a personal hearing under section 4(2)(b)(ii). If after taking the aforesaid steps the Estate Officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the Estate Officer shall make an order of eviction directing the public premises to be vacated on the date specified in the order but not later than 15 days from the date of the order. The reasons for making the order of eviction shall be recorded in the order and a copy of the order shall be affixed in the manner as provided under section 5(1).

4. In the present case, the show-cause notice under section 4(1) was not followed up by an order under section 5(1) as prescribed under the 1971 Act. The Estate Officer instead issued the impugned order dated 26.3.2022 under section 5-A(2) of the Act referring to the show-cause notice directing the removal of the immovable structure from the public premises. The impugned order is headlined as an order passed under section 5-A(2) of the Act and also mentions the alleged contravention of section 5-A(1) of the Act on the part of the petitioner.

5. Section 5-A relates to the power to remove unauthorised constructions and prohibits persons from erecting or raising any building or doing such other activities as provided under Clauses (1)(a)-(c) of section 5-A(1) of the Act. Section 5-A(2) authorises the Estate Officer to serve a notice on