The requirement of a valid document of allotment from the competent authority to establish authorized occupation, and the importance of procedural fairness and the accuracy of outcome in decision-making.

JUDGMENT

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 18.07.2016 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 64 of 2013 by the District Judge-XII, Dhanbad, has been assailed, whereby and whereunder, the order passed by the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway, Dhanbad dated 27.09.2013, has been declined to be interfered with.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief, as per the pleading made in the writ application is that on 08.12.1981 the petitioner made an application before the Divisional Engineer, South Eastern Railway, Mahuda for allotment of Railway plot at Mahuda for opening a shop, being considered, vide communication dated 21.12.1981 the Divisional Engineer has allowed the petitioner to take possession of the said part of the portion of the land and forwarded the matter for its sanction before the competent authority. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid portion of the land and has constructed a shop therein, since there is no dispute regarding possession of the land in question, but the authority has referred the said matter before the Estate Officer, constituted under the provision of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1971) but on consideration of the factual aspect, who on consideration, has passed an order on 27.09.2013, declaring the petitioner as unauthorized occupant and directed to him to be evicted, the petitioner being aggrieved with the same, has filed appeal before the District Judge, Dhanbad, being Misc. Appeal No. 64 of 2013, which has been dismissed, vide judgment dated 18.07.2016, against which this writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by taking the grounds that the Estate Officer has passed a mechanical order, since the same has been passed in a Cyclo Style Copy, therefore, the proper application is not there.

The appellate Court has not considered the communication dated 24.12.1981, by which, the petitioner has allowed to continue over the possession of the aforesaid portion of land and if that would have been taken into consideration in right prospective, the declaration with respect to unauthorized occupant would not have been given either by the Estate Officer of the appellate court. He has further submitted that the petitioner is continuing since 1981 and, therefore, by virtue of the adverse possession he has accrued a right.

4. While, on the other hand Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railway, has submitted that there is no error in the decision taken either by the Estate Officer or by the Appellate Court, since the petitioner has failed to establish his valid right, claiming possession over the land in question and in absence thereof, the finding given by the Estate Officer with respect to unauthorized occupancy cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. He submits that the reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon the communication dated 24.12.1981, cannot be said to be a valid allotment order justifying the legal physical possession over the land in question, rather it is merely a forwarding letter made before the competent authority for its sanction, but nothing has been brought by the petitioner either before the Estate Officer or before the appellate court or before this Court, the valid sanction order issued by the competent authority in his favour. He, therefore, submits that there is no perversity in the finding and hence the same may not be interfered with.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions the fact, which is not in dispute that the petitioner is claiming his right over the portion of land, where he has constructed a shop, is the communication dated 24.12.1981 and, therefore, the same needs to be reflected hereunder:

"Page 31- Your application for sanc