NARYANA SWAMY Vs. COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Judgment & decree dtd. 21/4/2023 rendered by learned LVII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Bengaluru, in MA No.25002/2022, whereby his challenge to the Eviction Order dtd. 6/10/2022 made by the Defence Estate Officer has been negatived. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argues that where there is a serious dispute as to title to the property, the invocation of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is impermissible. He also argues that identity of the subject property itself is in challenge and such issues have to be sorted at the hands of ordinary Civil Courts. There is a grievance as to non-availability of reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner in the subject proceedings. So arguing, he seeks invalidation of the impugned orders.

(2.) Learned Sr. CGC appearing in Caveat on behalf of the Respondent vehemently opposes the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been structured. He points out the findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier rounds of litigation and thereby seeks to resjudicate the contentions of the Petitioner. He submits that the impugned orders are perfectly in accord with the law as laid down by the Apex Court. Lastly, he contends that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 constitutionally vested in this Court being restrictive, the examination of the impugned orders cannot be undertaken as if the challenge to them is appeal, more particularly when the factual findings have been recorded by the statutory authority and the same having been examined are affirmed by the learned City Civil Judge on the regular side.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: