Compliance with the order of the Division Bench, sufficiency of opportunity of hearing, and the requirement for documentary evidence to support claims of title.

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 respondent in all these Writ Petitions. In the counter-affidavit, they have categorically stated that the petitioners are encroachers and the subject lands are required for public purpose. According to them, the respective petitioners never claimed title over the properties but all of a sudden, they took a different stand later claiming title. According to them, personal hearing was also afforded to the respective petitioners pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.10.2021 and the subject order was complied with by them in letter and spirit.

4. Heard Mr.M.Elango, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned standing counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order which submits that based on an order dated 15.09.2021 which has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.10.2021, the present impugned order has been passed and therefore, it is illegal.

6. However, the learned standing counsel for the respondent would submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the respective petitioners including, granting them the right of personal hearing and only thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed. He would further submit that the respective petitioners never claimed title over their respective properties but all of a sudden, they shifted their stand claiming title. No documentary evidence was also produced before the respondent to claim their ownership. The learned standing counsel for the respondent also drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 15.11.2021 of the petitioners and submitted that the respective petitioners sought for an alternate accommodation and never claimed title. He would further submit that the subject properties are immediately required to the respondent for public purpose.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 27.10.2021 in WP.No.23090 of 2021 etc., batch, which was filed by the respective petitioners had remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration after affording a fair hearing to the respective petitioners including granting them the right of personal hearing. Admittedly, the respective petitioners were afforded a personal hearing on 15.11.2021, the date fixed by the Division Bench of this Court. The respondent has also produced original files which discloses that personal hearing was granted to the respective petitioners on 15.11.2021.

8. In these Writ Petitions, the only grievance raised by the petitioners is that principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondent. Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners claimed title over the property, th