Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Smt. Shaila Devi @ Shaila Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.2404 of 2013
Decided on : 17-11-2022
Eviction - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 4(1), Section 5(1), Section 9 - The judgment discusses the eviction of unauthorized occupants from a land belonging to South Eastern Railway. The court analyzes the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer, the notice issued, the claim of title by the petitioners, and the encroachment of railway land. The court concludes that the petitioners failed to establish their title and were in unauthorized occupation of the land, dismissing the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were served with a notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, alleging unauthorized occupation of land belonging to South Eastern Railway. The petitioners challenged the order of eviction through multiple rounds of litigation, questioning the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer and the validity of the notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to establish their title over the land and were in unauthorized occupation. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer, the validity of the notice, the claim of title by the petitioners, and the encroachment of railway land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners failed to establish their title over the land and were in unauthorized occupation. The court also concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners failed to establish their title and were in unauthorized occupation of the land.
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Estate Officer, S.E. Railway, Chakardharpur in EC No.66/1978 holding the petitioners unauthorized occupants of a total area measuring 3740 Sq. Ft. (68 Sq. Ft x 55 Sq. Ft) of the land in Plot No.1, Khata No.14, Thana No.1162 in Mouza Susnigaria, which is of South Eastern Railway and thereby, the ordered to vacate the said premises within 15 days from the date of publication of the order. Further, prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 2nd April, 2013 passed by the District Judge-III, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Misc. Appeal No.17/2011, by which, the order passed by the Estate Officer dated 29.09.2011 in EC No.66/1978 has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the petition, which required to be enumerated read as under:-
It is the case of the petitioners that one Akhilesh Prasad Singh, deceased husband of the petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 was served with a notice dated 06.05.1978 under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971) in Eviction Case No.66/1978 alleging therein that the land measuring 1890 Sq. Ft. (675 Sq. Ft. + 1215 Sq. Ft) with specific boundary belonged to Union of India represented by South Eastern Railway Administration. The said proceeding commenced, however, an ex-parte order was passed on 18.05.1979 and in the meanwhile, the said Akhilesh Prasad Singh died.
However, the petitioners filed Misc. Appeal No.14/1979 against the order dated 18.05.1979 before the appellate authority, as per the provision as contained under the Act, 1971 but the said ex-parte order was confirmed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 25.05.1985.
The petitioners preferred CWJC No.1173 of 1985(R) before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and the order passed by the Original as also the Appellate Authority were quashed by the Division Bench vide order dated 07.11.1990 and the matter was remitted back to the Estate Officer to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Estate Officer again has passed order afresh on 02.09.1993, which was again confirmed by the Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal of the petitioners vide order dated 13.04.2004. The petitioners again filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3475 of 2004 challenging the aforesaid order and again the writ petition was allowed in terms of judgment dated 02.09.2009 by remitting the matter back to the Estate Officer with a direction to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law.
The petitioners have filed their show cause pursuant to notice dated 06.05.1978 and judgment dated 02.09.2009 stating inter-alia that the land in question was originally recorded in the name of Pawan Bhumij and aboriginal member of Scheduled Tribe, the great Grandfather of Digamber Bhumij and since 1930, the petitioners and their ancestors were coming in the possession by constructing the shops thereon.
The further point has been raised that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate proceeding as he was not authorized to pass order under Section 3 of the Act, 1971. Thereafter, the proceeding proceeded and finally the order passed by the Estate Officer on 29.09.2011 for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises within 15 days from the publication of the order. The petitioners, being aggrieved with the order of the Estate Officer dated 29.09.2011 in EC Case No.66 of 1978, have preferred statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 being Misc. Appeal No.17 of 2011.
During its pendency, petitioners have filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7609 of 2012 which was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2012, against which, the petitioners have filed L.P.A. No.17 of 2013, wherein, the Division Bench vide order dated 21.02.2013 has been pleased
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners failed to establish their title over the land and were in unauthorized occupation, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 does not allow it to reappraise evidence or substitute its judgment for that of an inferior court unless there is a grave legal issue.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of authority of the Estate Officer and the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The main legal point established is that the nature of the right claimed and the absence of mention of agreement termination in eviction notices determine the applicability of the Public Premises (Ev....
Once land has been acquired, it cannot be restored to tenure- holders/persons interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it is so acquired. Once possession of land has been taken, i....
Adverse possession claims over government land require substantial evidence; mere long-standing possession does not confer title, particularly where public interest is involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute between the petitioners' claim as landholders and the claim of unauthorized occupation by the Estate Officer should be decided by ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of public premises under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 and the re....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
