PRAFULCHANDRA SHANTILAL Vs. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a classic example where the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (Public Premises Act, for short) which is a special statute enacted for the purpose of expeditious removal of unauthorized occupation of public premises has been frustrated, misused and abused by various factors, such as procedural delays, court congestion and lawyers' ingenuity. The license through which the petitioner was granted land of the Railways for a period of 3 years though expired way back in 1970's, the petitioner under legal protection continued to enjoy the possession thereof for years together and till today there is interim order in favour of the petitioner when in the year 2009 the petition is coming up for final disposal having admitted in the year 1996.

(2.) AT the outset, few facts may be noted. Certain land belonging to the Railways admeasuring approximately 80 acres was given on license to the father of the petitioner herein for a period of 3 years from 1. 1. 73 to 31. 12. 75 under a registered agreement entered into between the parties. On 16. 3. 83, the Estate Officer of the Western Railway issued a notice to the father of the petitioner calling upon him to show why eviction order should not be made against him on the grounds stated in the notice. The grounds read as follows :-

(3.) FATHER of the petitioner opposed the said notice on various grounds. The Estate Officer and Additional Divisional Railway Manager, however, by an order dated 15. 1. 88 directed the father of the petitioner to be evicted from the premises within 15 days of publication of the order.