Back
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
K. Thangavel – Appellant
Versus
Estate Officer (ADRM/SA), Southern Railway, Salem – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceeding of respondent in SA/W.274/Encroachment dated 08.02.2022 and quash the same.)
Common Order
1. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 08.02.2022 passed under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupation) Act 1971, against the respective petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:-
(a) The respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order by relying upon a notice issued by them under Section 5(1) of the Act, which was quashed by this Court by its order dated 27.10.2021 in W.P.No.23090 of 2021.
(b) The respondent had passed the impugned order in violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23090 of 2021 dated 27.10.2021.
2. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of the respective properties for a long number of years. According to them, the respondent has arbitrarily and illegally passed the eviction order.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the responde
Compliance with the order of the Division Bench, sufficiency of opportunity of hearing, and the requirement for documentary evidence to support claims of title.
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists, unless there are violations of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles and proper procedural considerations in eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises Act.
Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act cannot resolve bona fide title disputes, which must be adjudicated in a civil court, ensuring respect for legal authority and due process.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the verification of revenue records and the eviction of encroachers to ensure the free flow of water through the canal.
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
