B.C. SHAW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition, presented on May 14, 2014, is to an order of eviction dated March 10, 2014, passed by the Estate Officer, the third respondent, in a proceeding initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereafter the 1971 Act). By the impugned order, the third respondent recorded a satisfaction that the plots of land that are the subject matter of the proceeding (hereafter the said plots) belong to the Eastern Railway administration and that the petitioner is in occupation thereof without any authority and, thus, not only liable to be evicted but also liable to pay rent/damages for the period of unauthorized occupation of the said plots till it vacates the same.

(2.) THE writ petition was considered first on June 4, 2014 for admission. Since Section 9 of the 1971 Act provided a remedy to the petitioner to question the correctness of the order dated March 10, 2014 in an appeal before the District Judge, I had observed that the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate remedy. Responding to such observation, Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding in terms of the provisions of the 1971 Act is in question and, therefore, the Court ought not to relegate the petitioner to the appellate remedy.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Bandyopadhyay, the said plots originally belonged to Bengal Assam Railway and were allotted in favour of the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner as a measure of economic rehabilitation in 1942 by a memorandum of agreement. Although with the nationalization of the railway the said plots became the property of the Central Government, the relationship between the railway and the petitioner continued to be governed by the Transfer of Property Act (hereafter the 1882 Act) and the 1971 Act which was enacted much later could not have been pressed into service for the purpose of securing the eviction of the petitioner having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : (2014) 4 SCC 657 [Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.] and, therefore, initiation of the proceeding being without jurisdiction, it is the solemn duty of the Court to undo the legal wrong to which the petitioner has been subjected.