HARIHAR VISHWAKARMA Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD OANAPUR CANTONMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patna dated 30-11-1985 contained in Annexure-3 in the appeal preferred by the petitioners from the order of the Estate Officer of the Cantonment Board, Danapur under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). On the basis of reports of the Cantonment Overseer, the Estate Officer of the Cantonment Board started eviction proceedings and directed the notices to be served on the petitioners under Section 4 (1) of the Act. After return of the service reports, in a summary proceeding, the Estate Officer held that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants over the Cantonment Board's land and directed them to vacate the premises within the specified days. On appeal preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, the sole contention of the petitioners that the premises under dispute are not Public premises within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act was repelled and over ruled.

(2.) Before considering the said question raised here in this writ application on behalf of all the petitioners, it is relevant to consider the short facts. The Cantonment Estate Officer had allotted a temporary licence for occupation of land for the construction of a Gumtee only to petitioners 1 and 2 in the years 1975 and 1976 for a period of one year and after that the licence was not renewed. Thereafter, the Estate Officer (respondent No. 2) served a notice for payment of damages for unauthorised occupation of the land. The petitioners 3 to 6 were never allotted any portion of land either for construction of a Gumtee or for any residential purpose. They forcefully occupied the Cantonment Board's land without paying any rent to the Cantonment Board. The first and the second petitioners had paid the damages charges for encroachment of the 'Gumtee' in the month of March 1985, their licences were not renewed and as such, their rents were not accepted by the Board. The licence was strictly for a period of one year and the terms and conditions of the said licence were also violated which itself made them liable for eviction from the premises. When the petitioners did not vacate the premises in question, after expiry of the period of licence, then the Estate Officer-cum-Executive Officer (respondent No. 2) served a notice under Section 4 (a) of the Act on 24-8-1985 directing them to show cause as to why an order of eviction be not passed for unauthorised occupation of the land in question. The first and the second petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2 and filed show cause on 9-9-1985. They were heard and after considering their show cause, a notice under Section 5 (1) of the Act was served on 12-9-1985 by the Estate Officer directing them to vacate the premises within the stipulated time.

(3.) By a notification contained in S. O. No. 1104, dated 7-5-1959 as amended upto 30-4-1974, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act the Central Government appointed the officer mentioned in column No. 1 of the table being Gazetted Officers of Government, to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the Act to exercise powers conferred and to perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of the respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding entries in Column No. 2 of the table. Annexure-C is quotted here under :