The court upheld the finality of orders made under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised) Act, 1971, and emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. The gist of the case is as follows:-

1.(a) The petitioners are small farmers. They claim that they own and possess agricultural lands in Survey Nos.79, 80 and 81 of Mallavaram, Georgepeta, Polekurru and Tallarevu Villages, Tallarevu Mandal in East Godavari District. It is also alleged by them either that they belong to them by way of purchase through various sale deeds or by way of inheritance from their ancestors and they have been in possession for a long time. In certain portions of the lands the petitioners are doing prawn culture. The Government of Pondicherry (Presently Puducherry) describing them that they are none other than the encroachers of the lands which are within the territory of Pondicherry, issued notices to them under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised) Occupants Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The petitioners preferred objections for the Estate Officers consideration. After considering the materials on record, an earlier Estate Officer on 12. 1978, passed orders of eviction. The lands were required for Government for assigning them to defence personnel.

1.(b) Aggrieved by the above said orders some of the appellants preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority under the Act. On 16. 1979, in the batch of appeals in N.A.No.7 of 1979 etc., the Principal District Judge viz., the Appellate Authority under the Act allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Estate Officer and directed the Estate Officer to proceed against the appellants again, after issuing fresh notices under section 4 containing all particulars. The learned Judge has rendered finding that the particulars of the properties were not described properly and that the Estate Officer should have afforded ample opportunities of personal hearing.

1.(c) Afterwards, the Estate Officer, by means of notices dated 21. 2005 called for objections, heard them and eventually passed separate proceedings to each of the petitioners on 31. 2007 under Sub-Section(1) of Section 5 of the Act, directing their eviction from the premises, further providing that, if need be, by the use of such force as may be necessary.

1.(d) Carrying the said order in appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioners challenged the proceedings of eviction on various grounds. They have stated in their grounds of appeal that the properties in question are their private properties, that they acquired right over them either by succession or by purchase through registered sale deeds and that the perusal of the survey records of the Government of Andhra Pradesh would disclose the factum that the schedule property is the private property and not the public premises and the river Godavari itself belongs to Andhara Pradesh. The alleged joint survey of the lands by the officials of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Government of Puducherry could not be relied upon. The reasons adduced in the orders of Estate Officer are unreasonable. The requirements contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act have not been satisfied. Even though there were previous specific directions by the Appellate Authority to furnish details with regard to the exact boundaries, dimensions as well as a sketch be appended to each of the notice as well as the eviction order, the respondent has not complied with the same. By not giving sufficient materials to defend, principles of natural justice has not been complied with. The Order is not only illegal, but also against the principles of natural justice.

2. After hearing both sides, the learned Principal District Judge, Appellate Authority, Puducherry on 30.03.2007 passed a common order in all the appeals, dismissing them, granting one month time to the appellants to vacate and to deliver vacant possession of their respective portions of the public premises in their occupation to the respondent. He has observed that from the materials, it is found that the survey officials of both the G