BAWA R SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ direction or order (a) declaring the provisions of Sections 4 5, 6, and 10 (E) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Urauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 to be illegal and void, (b) d daring the action of respondent No. 2 taken in respect of shop? Nos. I and 2 belonging to the petitioner under the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act to be had in law and (c)directing respondent No. 2 to deliver possession of shops Nos. 1 and 2 to the the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner purchased a property known as "Malrose" bearing Door No. 245/4 Situated in Upper Kaithu, Simla, in a public auction held by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur under the provisions of the Displaced Persons Compensation Act and the said property was transferred to the petitioner with effect from 14th January, 1957. Thereafter the petitioner constructed six stalls in the compound attached to the property. On 30th December, 1958 the petitioner received a notice from the Executive Engineer, Simla Central Division informing the petitioner (bat the land on which he had constructed the stalls belonged to the Government of India and calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment. Accordnig to the petitioner he made a representation to the Executive Engineer to the effect that these stalls were constructed on land belonaing to him and that there was no encroachment upon, any part of the Government land and that on such representation the authorities were satisfied that there was no encroachment by the petitioner and consequently no action was taken aginst him. But again on 22nd February, 1962, another notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 purporting to be under section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the petitioner had encroached upoi Government land to the extent of 30 square yards and 6 square feet by constructing the stalls and callingpon the petitioner to show cause against his eviction from the said piece of land. The petitioner again made a representation to the Estate Officer against the prooosed eviction and according to the petitoner the authorities were satistified with his representation and no action was taken against him. Then again on 15th May, 1957 another notice was sent to the petitioner by respondent No, 2 stating that the first and second shops in the row of stalls had been unauchorisedly constructed on Government land and calling upon the petitioner to vacate the same within 45 days of the receipt of the notice. According to the petitioner he again made representation to the second respondent against the proposed eviction but his representations were not accepted and.. respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 1st May, 1960 under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act to the effect that respondent No. 2 had decided to take over possession of the premises in question. On 15th May, 1969 respondent No 2followed up this Older by actually taking over possession of the two of the shops eonstructed by the petitoneer On 15th May 1969 the second Respondent 1ssued a notice to the petitioner under Section 6() of the Act calling upon him to remove the structures in question' within 14 day from the date of the issue of the notice failing which the structures were liable to be rcmoved or disposed of by respondent No. 2 in public auction. Awording to the petitioner he sent. a number of representations to rsepondent No. 2 against the action taken by him but in spite of such representations the petitioner did not obtain any relief at the hands of the respondent.

(3.) In his petition the petitioner has challenged the action taken by the second respondent on the following grounds :- (1) That Sections 4 and 5 of the Act were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as two remedies were open to the Estate Officer for the eviction of persons alleged to be in unauthorised possession of premises, namely :- Under the normal Saw by filing a regular civil suit and another by having recourse to the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act and no guiding principles were prescribed in the Act with regard to the choosing of the two remedies in a prticular case, and 21 that Section 10(E) of the Act did not have the effect of validating Sections 4 and 5 of the Act which were void ab initio. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a declaration from this Court that the action taken by the respondents under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act was illegal and that the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the property from which he has been dispossessed by respondent No. 2.