THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J
Union Of India And 2 Ors - Appellant
Versus
Nripen Chandra Das @ Nripen Kumar Son Of Late Guneswar Kumar - Respondent
CRP 14 / 2025
Decided On : 19-02-2025
(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 4 and 5 - Eviction order set aside by Appellate Authority on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to consider representations - The Estate Officer must determine if the land is public premises before eviction. (Paras 3 , 4 , 6 , 10 )
(B) Jurisdiction of Estate Officer - The Estate Officer's jurisdiction is limited to public premises as defined under the Act, requiring proper notice and consideration of objections before eviction. (Paras 4 , 5 , 8 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the Appellate Authority's decision which set aside an eviction order on grounds that the Estate Officer failed to consider the respondent's representation and documents regarding land ownership.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Authority's failure to address whether the land was railway land or government land constituted a perverse finding, necessitating remand for fresh adjudication.
Issues: The main issues were whether the land in question was railway land and if the respondent had legal authority to occupy it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Appellate Authority erred in not determining the land's status and in failing to consider relevant documents, thus necessitating a remand for proper adjudication.
Result: The matter is remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who is also on caveat.
2. The petitioners herein have assailed the judgment and order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No.83/2021 by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the order dated 25.08.2021 passed in Misc. Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/04/2021 by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon was set aside.
3. This Court has duly perused the judgment and order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 83/2021 whereby the learned Appellate Authority had held that the eviction order impugned in the said proceedings was bad in law on the ground that the judgment passed in Misc. Appeal No.29/2015 dated 05.06.2018 having attained finality for which the Estate Officer could not have passed the eviction order dated 25.08.2021. The learned Appellate Authority further observed in the impugned judgment and order that during the pendency of the said eviction proceedings, a representation was submitted by the respondent herein which was disposed of on 18.08.2021 and subsequent thereto, the eviction order was passed on 25.08.2021. On the basis thereof the learned Appellate Authority observed that as the respondent herein who was the appellant in the said proceedings had submitted a representation and that representation was disposed of without giving an opportunity of hearing, the impugned eviction order dated 25.08.2021 was bad in law and accordingly was set aside.
4. This Court has duly taken note of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 1971”). From a perusal of the provisions of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act of 1971, it is seen that the Estate Officer can exercise its jurisdiction only over a public premises as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1971. Under such circumstances, if there is an unauthorized occupant over a public premises, the Estate Officer so appointed is required to issue notice in terms with Section 4 of the Act of 1971 calling upon the person who is an unauthorized occupant to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made.
5. In the instant case, it is seen that the respondent herein had submitted his objection to the show cause to the effect that the land in question was not a railway land but a Sarkari land. The Estate Officer had been conferred jurisdiction under the Act of 1971 to decide as to whether the premises which includes land is a public premise or not and in the instant case, as to whether, the land was a railway land. The Act of 1971 further empowers the Estate Officer if not satisfied with the reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 to pass an order of eviction under Section 5 of the Act of 1971. Therefore, from the perusal of the Act of 1971, it is seen that in respect to a public premises, the Estate Officer is empowered to initiate action under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 and if not satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in an order and pass an order of eviction in terms with Section 5 of the Act of 1971.
6. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that in the judgment and order dated 05.06.2018 in Misc. Appeal No. 29/2015, the learned Additional District Judge No.4, FTC, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati had interfered with the order of eviction passed earlier on the following grounds:
The Estate Officer must determine if the land is public premises before eviction, considering all representations and documents submitted.
The Estate Officer must determine the nature of the land and consider all representations before issuing an eviction order under the Public Premises Act.
The court emphasized the necessity for the Appellate Authority to determine land classification and occupancy rights prior to issuing eviction orders.
The petitioner should have preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 instead of approaching the court through a writ petition.
The court upheld the eviction order under the Public Premises Act, finding no jurisdictional error and validating the claims of land ownership by the railway authority over the disputed land.
The main legal point established is that the nature of the right claimed and the absence of mention of agreement termination in eviction notices determine the applicability of the Public Premises (Ev....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of authority of the Estate Officer and the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Eviction processes must adhere to due process of law, and improper notice renders a suit not barred under the Public Premises Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.