The main legal point established is that long and continuous possession does not necessarily confer ownership rights, especially in cases involving public property. The court emphasized the need to prevent unauthorized occupation and safeguard public property.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

“That the eviction proceedings as started by the Respondents pursuant to notice Annexure P-2, may kindly be ordered to be set aside and quashed and since orders under challenge vide Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-8 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and Additional District Judge, Sirmour, in appeal, respectively, may kindly be set aside and quashed.”

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act were initiated against the petitioners which culminated into an eviction order. This order was further assailed before the learned Appellate Authority, who too dismissed the same vide judgment dated 22.06.2015.

3. The subject-matter of dispute is the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 665 to 670, measuring 0-02-06 hectares, situated in revenue estate Chhawani, Nahan, District Sirmaur. The land in dispute was recorded in the ownership of the Central Government, who instituted proceedings for eviction as it was the petitioners, who were in possession of the same.

4. The petitioners contested these proceedings by claiming that the notice served upon them was mala-fide and without jurisdiction because in the Civil Suit No. 45/1 of 2012 instituted by them, their possession for more than 60 years over the suit land had been established and the suit had been partly decreed. It was further averred that the suit land had been given to the predecessor of the petitioners by the erstwhile ruler of Sirmaur State and their possession over the suit land was from three generations. It was also averred that they had constructed their houses by investing huge amount.

5. The Estate Officer found the possession of the petitioners to be unauthorized and accordingly ordered their eviction which order, as observed earlier, was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

We have heard Shri G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri B.C. Verma, Advocate and have gone through the records of the case.

6. At the outset, it may be observed that the Public Premises Act has been enacted with a view to provide for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons for this enactment, reference has been made to the judicial decisions whereby the 1958 Act was declared as unconstitutional and it has been mentioned:-

"63. The court decisions, referred to above, have created serious difficulties for the Government inasmuch as the proceedings taken by the various Estate Officers appointed under the Act either for the eviction of persons who are in unauthorised occupation of public premises or for the recovery of rent or damages from such persons stand null and void….. It has become impossible for Government to take expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupation of public premises and recovery of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation. It is, therefore, considered imperative to restore a speedy machinery for the eviction of persons who are in unauthorised occupation of public premises keeping in view at the same time the necessity of complying with the provision of the Constitution and the judicial pronouncements, referred to above."

7. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the aforesaid Statement of Objects and Reasons in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Another vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (1990) 4 SCC 406 held that the Public Premises Act had been enacted to deal with the mischief of rampant unauthorised occupation of public premises by providing a speedy machinery for the eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation. It was held:-

“This shows that the Public Premises Act has been enacted to deal with the mischief of rampant unauthorised occupation of public premises by providing a speedy machinery for the eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation. In order to secure this object the said Act prescribes the time pe