Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Sajjan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-7863-2022
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Public Premises Act - Unauthorized Occupation - The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer to issue notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, without the requirement of providing reasons and despite the pendency of a civil suit for injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that his father was allotted the disputed land by the respondents and after his father's death, the petitioner continued in possession. The petitioner received a notice to vacate the land and filed a suit for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the Estate Officer issued a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, which was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's arguments, stating that the notice under Section 4 of the Act did not require reasons to be given and that the pendency of a civil suit did not deprive the authorities of jurisdiction.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act and the effect of pendency of a civil suit on the authority's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Estate Officer had the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 4 of the Act without providing reasons, and the pendency of a civil suit did not affect the authority's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner alleges that his father was allotted the land in dispute by the respondents. After his death the petitioner has continued in possession. Vide notice dated 13.05.2021 (Annexure P-2) he was directed to vacate the land in dispute within seven days as he was in unauthorized possession thereof. On receipt of the said notice, a suit for permanent injunction was filed which is allegedly pending. Meanwhile, notice dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-4) has been issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. This notice is under challenge in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no reasons have been given in the notice impugned and, thus, the same deserves to be quashed. That apart, the said notice is without jurisdiction as a civil suit is already pending.
3. A perusal of Section 4 of the aforementioned Act shows that upon receipt of information of any person being in unauthorized occupation of a publicpremises, the Estate Officer has the jurisdiction to issue notice. The provision does not require any reasons to be given in support of the allegation that the person is in unauthorized occupation. Moreover, if reasons were to be given it would amount to prejudging the issue and would be illegal. Thus, this argument is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. The second argument regarding pendency of a civil suit is equally misconceived. Merely because a suit for injunction has been filed it would not deprive the authorities concerned of the jurisdiction granted under the Act.
4. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
The jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act does not require the provision of reasons, and the pendency of a civil suit does not affect the authority's jurisdict....
The importance of not usurping the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer in matters involving mixed elements of fact and law.
Unauthorized occupation of public premises without lawful authority can lead to eviction under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.
: An administrative order passed without jurisdiction is amenable to a writ petition.
An eviction notice under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 must be supported by reasons and after giving show-cause notice under Section 7 of the Act and after giving an opp....
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 that the dispute between the petitioners' claim as landholders and the claim of unauthorized occupation by the Estate Officer should be decided by ....
An eviction notice under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, must be supported by reasons and preceded by a show-cause notice under Section 7, with an opportunity of hearing ....
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
