The court upheld eviction orders based on credible joint inspection reports, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to provide counter-evidence against claims of unauthorized construction.

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the order dated 12.09.2016 (Annex.7) passed by Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway, Ajmer and the order dated 24.05.2023 (Annex.10) passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application on 03.07.2003 under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1971') against the petitioner from the land 129/1-2 between (Railway Telephone Post 1 and 2) East side of the Station Division Bhilwara, inasmuch as the petitioner illegally encroached over the said land by constructing boundary wall upon an area ad-measuring 46.25 square meters.

3. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner is in possession of the land i.e. 128/9-129-0 and he has not encroached over the land of the railways i.e. Pillar No.129/1/2. However, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the Estate Officer on 09.07.2003 (Annex.1) whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he may not be dispossessed from the land in question. The petitioner submitted his reply while denying the fact that he has encroached over the railways land. In reply to the notice, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the land purchased by him ad-measuring 40' x 125' comprising of Aaraji No.326 and the railway track is 105 feet away from his land. The petitioner requested for conducting survey/inspection so that the actual position could be determined.

4. Thereafter, the Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway, Ajmer vide its order dated 14.07.2004 proceeded to direct eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2004 preferred an appeal, which appeal came to be allowed by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara vide order dated 30.10.2004, whereby the matter was remanded to the Estate Officer with a direction to decide the matter afresh while following the due procedure provided under the Act of 1971.

5. After the matter being remanded, the Estate Officer again sent a notice to the petitioner and in response thereof, the petitioner submitted requisite documents. Thereafter, demarcation proceedings were undertaken and report in this regard was submitted. On the report, which was prepared on 10.02.2016, the encroachers refused to sign the same and this endorsement has specifically been mentioned in the demarcation report dated 10.02.2016 (Annex.5 at page 39 of the paper book). The petitioner submitted his objection to the demarcation/survey report on 15.03.2016 that Tehsildar himself was not present at the time of conducting of the survey and the same was made by Patwari Halka.

6. After hearing both the parties and considering the material and evidence led before the Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway, the learned Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway vide order impugned dated 12.09.2016 (Annex.7) proceeded to decree the suit filed by the respondent and issued direction for dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question.

7. Being aggrieved of the order dated 12.09.2016 (Annex.7), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara. The learned District Judge, Bhilwara dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Thus, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the while passing the orders impugned both the courts have misconstrued the survey/demarcation report submitted by the authorities concerned. Learned counsel further contends that though the petitioner filed objection to the surv