The court emphasized the necessity for the Appellate Authority to determine land classification and occupancy rights prior to issuing eviction orders.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. 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.82/2021 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/05/2021 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. 82/2021 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.24/2015 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 dated25.08.2021 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. 24/2015, 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:

(a) The Estate Officer did not consider the representation so submitted by the respondent herein.

(b) The Estate Officer fail