The main legal point established in the judgment is that unauthorized occupation of government land can lead to eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and the summary procedure for eviction is not violative of fundamental rights.

1. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the Judgment, dated 27.01.2006 made in M.A.No.2 of 2004 on the file of the third respondent herein.

3. The petitioner has stated that he is in occupation of premises in R.S.No.291/2, measuring an extent of 0.19.00 hectares in Kalitheerthalkuppam village for about 30 years. All of a sudden, the second respondent issued Form – A notice, dated 19.09.2003 to the petitioner to show cause, why an order of eviction should not be made and the petitioner filed a detailed written statement, whereby raised his objection to the second respondent not to evict him from the land. According to the petitioner, he is in continuous possession over 30 years and paying necessary taxes to the Government and further the second respondent passed an order in Form B, dated 27.11.2003, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession within 30 days from the date of the order.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in M.A.No.2 of 2004 under Section 9(2)(a) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as an Act), before the third respondent, the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the third respondent by judgment dated 27.01.2006 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by which, the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property for about 30 years in the land in R.S.No.291/2 an extent of 0.19.00 h.a. in Kalitheerthalkuppam and so many other persons also occupied in the other portions of the land, however, the Second respondent issued notice only against the petitioner herein, which is not legally sustainable.

6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that admittedly, the land in occupation is the Government land and the petitioner has no right in the property. Similar actions were taken against the other occupants of the land and the Government has to implement certain schemes for which the land is required. The third respondent herein, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties and the arguments advanced for both sides, dismissed the appeal. It is seen that the petitioner, examined himself as P.W.1 and the first respondent herein was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked before the Court below. Considering the evidence and the arguments advanced by both sides, the Court below, third respondent herein dismissed the appeal, preferred by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the relief sought for in the writ petition is not legally sustainable and reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner to establish his claim, however the writ petitioner could not establish any right to the property. It is seen that the second respondent had framed the following points for consideration in the appeal:

1. Whether the appellant has not been given opportunity of a personal hearing and production of documentary evidence;

2. Whether the proceedings of the Estate Officer, the second respondent herein by way of issuing Form B notice under Sub Section 1 of Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as an Act) is liable to be set aside?

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was given opportunity to submit his explanation before the Court below. He himself was examined as P.W.1 apart from marking Exs.A1 to A10. It is the case of the petitioner that he wa