Eviction notices issued without proper jurisdiction and authority are arbitrary and illegal, especially when the possessors have established long-standing possession.

ORDER:-

The instant Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for following relief:

“..to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction holding that the action of the Respondents in issuing the threatening notices to the Petitioners in Lr.No.EE/14Land, dated 29.11.2010 numbered as RW/14, RW/15, RW/17, RW/18, RW/19 and RW/20 is arbitrary, illegal, motivated, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and fair play and may be pleased to quash the said notices and consequently direct the Respondents not to evict the Petitioners from their respective sites bearing Municipal House Nos. 25-20-22, 25-20-21, 25-20-21/1, 25-20-22/1, 25-20-18, 25-20-19, 25-20-18/1 and 25-20- 19/1 respectively situated at Narsimharaopeta, Eluru, West Godavari District otherwise than in due course of law and to pass…”

2. The case of the Petitioners is that Petitioners herein are the possessors of the small extents of open site situated at Narasimharaopeta, Near Railway Bridge, Eluru, West Godavari District. They have been living by constructing RCC roof, ACC roof and thatched houses and their houses were assessed by the Municipal Corporation for Property Tax and they have been paying the property tax regularly.

(a) More over they were provided with all basic amenities like drinking water and electricity supply connections, roads and drainage by local authorities i.e., the Corporation, which classified/recognized the Narasimharaopeta as Basthi / habitation within the municipal limits.

(b) Approximately 200 houses were constructed at subject land, out of them Petitioners herein have got constructed 18 in number and they were assigned with house numbers etc., for their residential houses and they have been continuing their possession since 70 years.

(c) While so, at first instance the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein issued notice to the Petitioners and other similarly situated persons of Narasimharaopeta in the year 1989 directing for eviction of the Petitioners and others Under Section 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short “Act, 1971”). The said notices were assailed by the Petitioners by way of W.P.No.16174/1990 and after hearing the matter this Hon‟ble Court was pleased to pass orders quashing the order of eviction dated 25.08.1990 and further directed the Petitioners therein to prefer an appeal as envisaged Under Section 9 of the Act, 1971.

(d) In compliance of the orders of this Court, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein preferred suit in A.S.No.98 of 1991 on the file of Hon‟ble District Judge, Eluru. After elaborate hearing the Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide order dated 19.07.1997 directing the claimants / appellants therein to submit their respective claims proving their title and possession before the Estate Officer by 10.08.1997 treating the eviction order passed as U/s 4 of the Act, 1971. Accordingly, the Petitioners 1 and 2 herein submitted their representations / explanation on 23.07.1997.

(e) Thereafter, the Respondent authorities kept quiet for 13 years and did not initiate any proceedings and allowed the continuous possession by the Petitioners in respect of their respective houses.

(f) While things stood thus, to the utter surprise of the Petitioners having kept silent for 13 years again the 1^st Respondent herein who claimed himself as Estate Officer issued an order of eviction U/s 5 of the Act, 1971 on 29.11.2010. The said eviction order was assailed in the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the Respondents herein is that the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal A.S.No.98 of 1991 on 19.07.1997 and remanded the matter to the Estate Officer to give the appellants an opportunity of appearance along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired on or before 10.08.1997. Furth