FULAJI OKHAJI THAKORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution an order directing summary eviction of the petitioner for the disputed land and also directing him to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 82 500 under the relevant provisions of the Public Premises Eviction of unauthorised occupants Act 1971 the Act for short and as confirmed by the appellate authority has been brought in challenge. A few relevant facts leading to this petition may be stated at the outset. The disputed land bearing S. No. 1703 paiki situated on the outskirts of Mehsana town admeasuring 2 hectares 15 acres and 50 sq. mts. belonged to one Navnitlal Amthalal Shah. The said land other survey numbers adjoining to this land were proposed for acquisition by the Western railway for the purpose of construction of residential quarters for the railway employees. or this purposes. notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in 1966. Thereafter it was followed by a notification under sec. 6 of the said Act. Proceedings for deciding compensation amount were also initiated hereafter and an award was passed on 19-4-1970. The awarded amount was paid to the owner of the land. It is the case of the respondents that possession of the land was also taken by the railway officers on 23-6-1971 from the original owner and that some time thereafter the petitioner trespassed upon the disputed land which is part of the acquire land and came ill to unauthorised occupation of the same. Under these circumstances he was sought to the evicated from the land in question under the Act. Notice was issued to the petitioner which is at annexure C to the petition calling upon him to show cause why he should not be evicated from the disputed land as he was in unauthorised occupation. Thereafter the petitioner was heard and ultimately the petitioner was ordered to be evicated the disputed land on the finding reached that he had no legal right to remain in possession of the acquired land and he was a mere trepasser. As noted earlier the appeal filed by the petitioner also failed before the learned Assistant Judge. So far as the question of damages was concerned the estate officer being the competent authority took the view that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 82 500 by way of damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the disputed land and he was ordered to pay it by 12 equal instalments. Even that part of the order has been confirmed by the appellate court. (Before the Honble Court the plaintiff undertook to vacate the disputed land on or before 31/05/1985)

(2.) Mr. Jani next contended that in any case the order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 89 500 by way of damages is patently bad. There were two plunks to his second challenge. Firstly he contended that the requisite notice under sec. 7(3) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the order of damages should not be passed against him was never issued to him and therefore the order of damages as passed by the competent authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority would be null and void. Secondly it was contended that even otherwise the authorities below have fixed the damages amount without considering all the relevant facts and circumstances and in an and hoc manner. In my view both the aforesaid planks of the second submission are well made out.

(3.) Sec. 7 of the Act reads as under: