TEJ KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 5922, 5923, 5924, 5925 of 2003 as the facts and law points involving in these writ petitions are identical. The impugned orders in all cases have been passed by the same authority on the same date. We will refer to the facts as pleaded in C.W.P. No. 5922 of 2003 in this order.

(2.) THE petitioners had been in possession of land belonging to the respondents from various dates commencing from the year 1957-58. Lease of the petitioner expired on 31.5.79. The aforesaid lease had been granted to the petitioners on 1.6.1974 for a period of five years. The petitioners after the expiry of the lease continued to be in unauthorised occupation thereof. The case of the petitioners for renewal of lease with effect from 1.6.1979 was recommended to the higher authorities on 1.7.1995. The recommendation was not accepted by the Director, Defence, Estates, Ministry of Defence, Western Command, Chandigarh. This decision was communicated to respondent No. 3 by letter No. 21/87/JR/TK/L/DE/87 dated 29.8.1995. Since the petitioners failed to voluntarily hand over the vacant possession of the land, proceedings were initiated against them under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971, by issuing a show cause notice dated 15.2.2000 under Sub-section (1) and Clause (b)(ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act. The petitioners submitted the written objections to the show case notice through their counsel. It was stated by the petitioners that the show cause notice is not sustainable as the matter has already been referred by the competent authority for approval and no decision in regard to the matter had ever been intimated to the petitioners. Therefore, according to the petitioners, it can be presumed that the recommendations of the competent authority have been approved and the lease automatically stood renewed.

(3.) WE are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Estate Officer does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. Not satisfied with the order, the petitioners filed appeals before the Appellate Authority under the Act i.e. in the Court of Shri Raj Shekhar Attri, Additional District Judge-cum-Authority, Jalandhar. After detailed discussion, the appeals filed by the petitioners have also been dismissed.