Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
BHEL MIG Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 23768 of 2022
Decided On : 20-09-2022
Public Premises - Unauthorized Occupation - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Section 4, Section 5 - The court discussed the provisions of the Act, including the definition of 'public premises' and 'unauthorized occupation', and highlighted the violation of principles of natural justice and the failure to follow the mandatory procedure laid down under the Act by the 2nd respondent in issuing the show cause notice and order. The court set aside the impugned show cause notice and order, allowing the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Act, 1964, was formed to establish a township for the employees of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent had conveyed the use of land to the petitioner society, which was split into two societies. The 2nd respondent issued a notice stating unauthorized occupation of BHEL Land by the petitioner's society, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a violation of principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure laid down under the Act by the 2nd respondent. It cited precedents and held that the impugned notice and order were illegal and set them aside, granting liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the Act.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, failure to follow the mandatory procedure laid down under the Act, and the legality of the show cause notice and order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the violation of principles of natural justice, failure to follow the mandatory procedure laid down under the Act, and the illegality of the show cause notice and order.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned show cause notice and order were set aside, with liberty granted to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the Act.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuance of show cause notice dated 20.08.2021 and all consequential proceedings including orders dated 13.05.2022 in Case No.001/ 2021/MIG-I on the file of respondent No.2 under Sections 4 and 5 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act, 1971’), as illegal and consequentially to set aside the said show cause notice dated 20.08.2021 and all the above consequential proceedings.
2. Heard Sri V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel representing Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Act, 1964. It was formed to establish a township for the employees of the Ramachandrapuram unit/3rd respondent herein. On the request made by the petitioner, vide G.O.Ms.No.278, Industries and Commerce (INF) Department, dated 19.06.1985, the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh, accorded permission to 3rd respondent to surrender 235 acres of land for the purpose of construction of houses to the employees under the Cooperative Housing Scheme. Pursuant to the said permission, 3rd respondent had executed two registered conveyance deeds bearing document Nos.6710/1988 for land admeasuring Ac.30.01guntas, Document No.8957/1988 for the land admeasuring Ac.170.22guntas both dated 07.12.1988, 3rd respondent conveyed the use of total land admeasuring Ac.200.23guntas to the petitioner society. The said land is situated in Sy.No.26/P of Seri- Nallagandla village, Sy.Nos.180/P, 181/P, 182/P, 183/P of Hanmole Village, Sy.No.322/P of Tellapur Village, Sy.Nos.401/P, 402/P, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409/P, 410/P, 411/P, 412/P, 413, 414, 415, 416/P, 417/P, 418/P, 432/P, 433, 435/P, 436, 437 and 441/P of Nallagandla Village.
4. The petitioner herein had also obtained a lay out from Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) vide proceedings dated 04.04.1989. Even as per the said lay out, total land allotted is 200.24guntas. Thereafter, the said Society was split into two societies viz; the petitioner’s society and BHEL Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Phase-II, Sanga Reddy. After the lay out has been completed, the GHMC authorities under the Comprehensive Road Maintenance Plan (CRMP) are looking after the roads, parks and maintenance of the petitioner’s society.
5. The petitioner’s society is allotted plotted area to its Members specifically by following the procedure laid down under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and also its by-laws. While the matter stood thus, 2nd respondent had issued a notice dated 08.02.2021 stating that he was appointed an Estate Officer under the provisions of the Act, 1971 to look after the estate of respondent No.3 and that as per the Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) survey, there is encroachment of BHEL Land, that the total land presently occupied by the petitioner’s society is Ac.207.99guntas. Whereas, it was allotted Ac.200.24guntas only and to surrender the excess land of Ac.7.75 guntas in which the petitioner’s society is in unauthorized occupation, to 3rd respondent. In the proceedings vide case No.001/2021/MIG-I, during the course of hearing, 2nd respondent had informed that 3rd respondent stated that it is in possession of panchanama dated 09.07.1986 through which land was allotted to the petitioner’s society. The petitioner herein vide letter dated 11.10.2021 submitted certain documents as instructed by 2nd respondent during the course of hearing on 30.08.2021. During the hearing, the petitioner’s society had requested 3rd respondent to furnish all the documents in support of their notice but 3rd respondent failed to submit the same. 3rd respondent sought adjournments on the ground that it requires some time to examine the case in detail.
6. On 12.03.2022, the petitioner’s society had filed a
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 ....
The necessity for eviction must be justified in addition to establishing unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act, as reaffirmed by prior judicial interpretations.
The court established that the issuance of eviction notices under the Public Premises Act requires the Estate Officer to demonstrate prima facie satisfaction based on adequate material, and that publ....
Challenging a Show Cause Notice invoking a court's writ jurisdiction is premature and discouraged by the mandate of the law. A Show Cause Notice does not give rise to a cause of action unless there i....
Possession after the lease's expiry without renewal renders the occupant unauthorized under the Act, justifying eviction for misuse of the premises.
Unauthorized occupation of public premises does not confer legal rights; eviction proceedings must adhere to statutory requirements, and alleged violations of natural justice must be substantiated.
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.
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
