IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that unauthorized occupation of public premises can lead to eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and that long-term possession without lawful rights does not confer entitlement to remain in occupation.

ORDER :

(V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.) :

The present petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 15.03.2023 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu in Public premises Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.31 of 2017 confirming the order of the 1st respondent/Estate Officer dated 03.10.2017 in No.STM/Works/8/2500.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Initially, the respondent, after issuing notice and receiving the reply from the petitioner, by way of an order dated 03.10.2017, under Sub Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act 1971, as amended by the Act, 180, Act 1984 and Act 1994, had directed the petitioner to vacate their premises situated in C.Pallavaram on the ground that the petitioner is in un-authorised occupation of the defence land, in the event of failure to do so, ordered for eviction by the use of such force, as may be necessary. As against the same, the petitioner has preferred P.P.C.M.A.No. 31 of 2017, the appellate court by order dated 15.03.2023 confirmed the orders passed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court below has committed incurable illegality by not pronouncing orders under Chapter 19 Section 10 of the Cantonment Rules & Regulations regarding the prior approval to be obtained by the Estate Officer from the Ministry of Defence before initiating any action under Public Premises Eviction of unauthorised occupants Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submit that the respondent have committed grave injustice by colluding with the adjacent and adjoining owner of the schedule premises merely with an oblique motive of making fortune out of the petitioners misfortune. Further, the Estate Officer did not conduct the enquiry appropriately according to the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 and the respondent failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner association along with their written submission dated 18.09.2017.

5. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent failed to consider the continuous possession of the petitioner over the property for a period of more than fourty years before passing the final orders. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 10 Supreme Court cases 799 [Asikali Akbarali Gilani and Others Vs. Nasirhusain Mahebubbhai Chauhan and Others], wherein it is held that 'If erection of such unauthorised structures is not conformity with State Policy, then Collector is required to take action as per directions of High Court within two months'. Moreover, the learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 732 [Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. Pitabasa Mishra and Others] wherein it is held that the Government grants, largesse, Public Property and public premises, delay in regularisation of unauthorised occupation/encroached upon land by Corporation – Not to disentitle the party seeking regularisation, even when the policy in favour of regularisation is reversed in the meanwhile.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and submitted that the present Revision is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. Earlier, one S.Sermakani has filed W.P.No.12631 of 2012 against the petitioner and respondent herein to take action against the encroachment made by the petitioner herein, as it was causing inconveninence to the general public and the said Petition was disposed of on 04.06.2012. Since the petitioner has un-authorisedly occupied the defence land, the respondent vide letter dated 31.08.2017 had issued notice and called upon the petitioner as to why eviction should not be made for unau