Back
1975 Supreme(Goa) 8
Goa High Court
K. N. SHUKLA, Addl. J. C.
Shrirang Padmanabha Prabhu etc. - Appellant
Versus
V. V. Joshi - Respondents
Special Civil Applns. (Writ Petns.) Nos 38 of 1969 and 41 of 1970
Decided On : 11 February 1975
Joachim Dias. Govt. Pleader, for Respondents. (In W. P. No. 41 of 1970).
The Central Government is empowered to extend a Central enactment which is in force in other States to a Union Territory under Section 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT - EXTENSION TO UNION TERRITORIES - VALIDITY - SCOPE OF SECTION 6 OF THE GOA, DAMAN AND DIU (ADMINISTRATION) ACT, 1962 - INTERPRETATION - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO EXTEND CENTRAL ENACTMENTS TO UNION TERRITORIES - MEANING OF "ENACTMENT IN FORCE IN A STATE" - "PUBLIC PREMISES" UNDER THE ACT - INCLUSION OF FORESTS IN UNION TERRITORIES - APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR AS ESTATE OFFICER - VALIDITY - IRREGULARITIES IN SERVICE OF NOTICE AND ORDER OF EVICTION - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the notices served on them under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, claiming that the Act could not be extended to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu under Section 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962. They also contended that the premises in question belonged to the Forest Department and were not "public premises" under the Act, and that the appointment of a Deputy Collector as Estate Officer was irregular.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Central Government was empowered to extend the Public Premises Act, 1958 to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu under Section 6 of the Administration Act, 1962, as the Act was in force in other States at the date of the notification. The court also held that "public premises" under the Act included forests in Union Territories, as Union Territories were not "States" for the purposes of the Constitution and List II of the 7th Schedule had no application to them. The court further held that the appointment of a Deputy Collector as Estate Officer was valid, as there was no limitation on the Central Government's power to appoint such an officer.
Issues: 1. Whether the Public Premises Act, 1958 could be extended to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu under Section 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962? 2. Whether the premises in question were "public premises" under the Act? 3. Whether the appointment of a Deputy Collector as Estate Officer was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 6 of the Administration Act, 1962 empowered the Central Government to extend any enactment in force in a State to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. The Public Premises Act, 1958 was in force in other States at the date of the notification, and therefore the Central Government was competent to extend it to the Union Territory. 2. "Public premises" under the Act included any premises belonging to the Central Government. Forests in Union Territories were not "State" property, as Union Territories were not "States" for the purposes of the Constitution. Therefore, forests in Union Territories were "public premises" under the Act. 3. Section 3 of the Public Premises Act, 1958 empowered the Central Government to appoint any Gazetted Officer of Government or officer of equivalent rank as Estate Officer. There was no limitation on this power suggesting that only an Officer of the Central Government could be appointed an Estate Officer. Therefore, the appointment of a Deputy Collector as Estate Officer was valid.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the notices and orders passed under the Public Premises Act, 1958 were valid and that the petitioners' challenges to their legality and vires had no substance.
ORDER :- The two writ petitions will be disposed of by a common judgment because the issues involve common or similar questions of law.
2. In both these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Articles 226-227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notices served on the petitioners by the Deputy Collector-cum-Estate Officer under S. 4 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958.
3. I will briefly state the facts covered by each writ petition separately.
Writ Petition No. 38 of 1969.
This petition was amended in view of the repeal of the Public Premises Act. 1958 by the new enactment Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter called the Public Premises Act, 1971. We will therefore, deal only with the petition as amended because many of the grounds taken earlier were dropped. Petitioners contention is that he is the owner of a property known as Nuem admeasuring about 55 hectares situate at Nuem Cola, Post Betul. A notice dated 17-9-1969 by first respondent in his alleged capacity as Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act, 1958 was served on the petitioner in which the Estate Officer called upon the petitioner to show cause why an order of eviction should not be passed against him.
4. The petitioner has come up to challenge the notice and the competence of the Estate Officer to take action under the Public Premises Act on the following points:-
(a) The 1958 Act is purported to have been extended to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu under Section 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 vide Central Government Notification No. F-7/26/66 UTL-92 published in G. G. Series I, No. 49 dated 10-3-1967. Sec. 6 enables the Central Government to extend to Goa, Daman and Diu any enactment which is in force in any State at the date of the Notification. According to the petitioner the Public Premises Act, 1958 is a Central Act and not a State Act and therefore it could not be extended to this territory under Section 6 of the Administration Act, 1962;
(b) The premises in question do not belong to the Central Government in as much as the premises belong to the Forest Department and under Entry 19. List II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution "Forests" fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of State Legislature and the Union or the Central Government is not the owner of the premises in question;
(c) Under the scheme of the 1971 Act only an Officer of the Central Government can be appointed as an Estate Officer. Since the first respondent is an officer of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu he could not be appointed as Estate Officer and had no jurisdiction to act under the 1958 or 1971 Act.
5. Petitioner prayed that the notice dated 17-9-1969 be quashed and respondents be restrained from taking any action thereunder.
Writ Petition No. 41 of 1970
6. This petition was also amended after the 1971 Act came into force. In this petition the premises in respect of which Estate Officer issued a notice and passed an order bear Government Plot No. 991. A notice dated 27-11-1968 purporting to be under Section 4 (1) of the Public Premises Act, 1958, was served on the petitioner. As no cause was shown an ex parte order under Section 5 of the Act was passed and an appeal against that order to the Court of District Judge was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The notice dated 27-11-1968 and the order of eviction dated 21-2-1969 have been challenged as null and void on the following grounds:-
(a) The same as set out in Para. 4 (a) and (c) above in Writ Petition No. 38/69.
(b) The order under Section 5 (1) was illegal because the Estate Officer did not comply with the requirements of law inasmuch as no date for vacation was specified,
(c) The procedure for service of the order of eviction and the period of limitation for appeal violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. The petit
