1 / 50

COURT MATTERS

This act applies to public premises owned by the Central Government and provides the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants. It outlines the roles of the Estate Officer, the applicant, and the respondent, as well as the process of issuing notices, conducting hearings, passing orders, and enforcing eviction.

alancarter
Download Presentation

COURT MATTERS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COURT MATTERS

  2. Sub : Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971. • 1. Applicable :- All over India – for the Public Premises i.e. The Central Government Property. • Commencement – The Act came into force on 6th September 1958 and Sec. 11, 19 & 20 came into the force on 23rd August 1971 when the Act was published in the gazette & Act known as P.P.Act 1971. • 3. Public Premises – The property which belongs to the Central Government including building garden, open land etc. • 4. Estate Officer – As per Sec 2b of the Act an officer appointed as a such by the Central Govt. under Sec. 3 of the Act. • 5. Appointment of the Estate Officer – Central Government by the notification in the official gazette appoints the gazette officer of Government as a Estate Officer to exercise all the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer, Estate officer is also quasi-judicial body.

  3. 6. Applicant – Before the estate officer only Govt. authorities are the applicant and filed the application for eviction, recovery of rent etc. of the public property. 7. Respondent – The person who is in possession of the Government property unauthorisedly by trespassing / encroachment behind the permissible period. 8. Complaint – The complaint / application filed by the applicant in the prescribed proforma before the Estate Officer for the eviction or recovery of rent of the public property. This filed by the application after the departmental remedies are over and the premises not vacated by the occupied person.(See Proforma “A”) 9. Notice – under Section 4. After scrutinizing the application if the Estate Officer is of an opinion that any persons who are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the estate officer should issue notice in the manner hereinafter provide a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (See Proforma “B”) Notice cover the following. 1.                 Shall call upon all the persons concerned to show cause. 2. It must specify the grounds.

  4. 3.                 Give 7 days clear time to show cause. 4.                 Must call upon the person to produce evidence. 5.                 Must be properly served. 6.                 Must be in the proforma given in Form “B”. Hearing. 1.                 Opportunity of personal hearing. 2.                 Minimum three hearing should given. 3.                 Roznama should be maintained. 4.                 Last opportunity with the summons before. 5.                 Deciding the matter in presence of respondents or ex-party. 6.                 Rule of natural justice to be followed. Summons Serve on the respondents and applicants time to time for attending the matter and producing the evidence. (See Proforma “D”)

  5. Passing of orders. Estate officer after hearing both the parties and after scrutinizing the records and evidence produced by the parties passed the appropriate order recording all the grounds and reason for satisfaction and directions for vacation. Order covers the following. 1.                 Identity of Public premises. 2.                 Name of the unauthorized occupant. 3.                 Date of unauthorized occupation. 4.                 Reasons for satisfaction. 5.                 Direction for vacation. 6.                 Date of vacation 7.                 Primary Intimation of use of force in case of forceable vacation. Procedure of serving of orders. 1.                 One copy to be served to the respondent by R/D. 2.                 One copy to be served to the applicant. 3.                 One copy to be sent through concerned Section Engineer (M) for serving or pasting on the door. (See proforma “E”) 4.                 One copy to be sent to the concerned Officer Incharge for further process.

  6. Powers of Estate Officer. All the powers of Sec. 5 of CPC 1908 & exercised by the Estate officer and try the following matters. (a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath. (b) Requiring discovery and production of documents. (c) Any other matter, which may be prescribed. Roznama It is the Court record, which shows the progress of the case of day by day & also showing the position of attendance and next hearing. (See proforma “C”) Eviction After passing the orders and serving the copy if respondent have not vacated the premises, department can evict the victim/respondent by force with the help of City police & other authorities like Electricity Board, RPF, GRP etc. The action of eviction should be adviced to all concern as per proforma “F”. .

  7. Appeal – As per Sec. 9 of the Act. (a) In case of an appeal in order under Sec.5 – within 12 days from the date of publication of the order under section (i) of that section. (b) In case of an appeal in order under section 5B on Sec 7 – within 12 days from the date of communication of the order. (c) In case of an appeal in order under Section 5C – 12 days from the date of such order.

  8. Proforma “A” Proforma “A” IN THE COURT OF THE ESTATE OFFICER CENTRAL RAILWAY MUMBAI CST. EVICTION IS SOUGHT BY No. Date : General Manager ….. Applicant. Central Railway Mumbai CST. ________________ ….. Respondent. ________________ ________________ To, The Estate Officer, Central Railway, Mumbai CST.

  9. It is submitted that Shri. __________________________ is in occupation of Gazetted Quarter No. ________________. Ground for Eviction : Unauthorised occupation of Qtr. No. _______________ beyond permissible period. Notice was served to him on ____________ (Respondent) to vacate the above mentioned Railway Quarter occupied by him (Exhibit –A). Although a period of _______ months and _______ days has lapsed, he has failed to hand over the said Railway Quarter in vacant position peacefully to the Railway Administration. Allotment of quarters has since been terminated w.e.f ___________ It is requested that the case may be instituted before your Hon’ble Court for evicting the said unauthorized occupant from the Railway premises i.e. Railway Quarter No. ________________ under the provision of PPEU Act 1971 immediately. For General Manager

  10. Proforma “B” CENTRAL RAILWAY Office of the Sr. Divisional Engineer, Estate Officer, Central Railway, 3rd Floor, Mumbai CST. Case No. __________________ of 2000 Date : Shri/Smt. ____________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Where as I, the undersigned am of the opinion on the grounds specified below that you are in unauthorized occupations of the public premises mentioned in the schedule below and that you should be evicted from the premises. SCHEDULE Signature & Seal of the Estate Officer Central Railway, Mumbai CST.

  11. GROUND Since the railway quarter which is more particular described in the schedule below which was allotted to you has been cancelled vide Notice dt. _________ as you had subletted the same. And you have failed to hand over the vacant possession peacefully inspite of Departmental Notice dt. ____________. Now therefore, in pursuance of Sub-section (i) of the Act, I hereby call upon you to show cause on or before me _______________________________ why such as order of eviction and should not be made. And in pursuance of clause (b) (ii) of sub-division (2) of section 4, I also call upon you to appear before in me in person or through a duly authorized representative capable of answering all material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence which you intend to produce in support of the cause shown on ____________________ at _________________ for personal hearing. In case you fail to appear on the said date and time, the case will be decided ex-parte.

  12. SCHEDULE Signature & Seal of the Estate Officer Central Railway, Mumbai CST.

  13. Proforma “C” IN THE COURT OF ESTATE OFFICER CENTRAL RAILWAY OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (WORKS) MUMBAI CST. CASE NO.________________________________OF________________________ ROZNAMA DATED ___________________________________________________ BEFORE THE ESTATE OFFICER SHRI.__________________________________ Applicant : __________________________________________________________ Respondent : ________________________________________________________

  14. Shri. _______________________________________________________________ Present on behalf of the applicant. Respondent Present / Absent. Matter Adjourned to : __________________________________________________

  15. Proforma “D” CENTRAL RAILWAY Office of the Estate Office Divisional Railway Manager (Works) 3rd Floor, Annex Bldg., Mumbai CST. Case No. _______________________________ Date : Shri./Smt. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Sub : Summons for hearing recording evidence under public premises Eviction Unauthorisedly occupants Act 1971. ----x----x----x----x---- You are informed that the case is adjourned for hearing to ___________________ at _____________ hours in case of your default the matter shall be heard Ex-parte, which please noted.

  16. Clerk of the Estate Court Central Railway, Mumbai CST  Copy to : ________________________________________________________ for information. He will depute a person on the estate with the relevant documents the case and produces the evidence in support of this case. Copy to IOW(W) ____________________ : for information and necessary action Clerk of the Estate Court Central Railway, Mumbai CST

  17. Proforma “E” CENTRAL RAILWAY OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (WORKS) / ESTATE OFFICER, MUMBAI CST. No. Case No. Date : IOW(M) ___________________ Re : Unauthorised occupation of Railway premises/ Quarter No. ______________________________ Shri/Smt. ________________________________ Show Cause Notice/Hearing/Letter/Judgement letter/Final Eviction Order is enclosed herewith. ----x----x----x----x----

  18. Please arrange to hand over the same to the parties be concerned taking their acknowledgement on the duplicate & returned to this office immediately. If the party is not available at the premises / Quarter or refuse to accept, then the duplicate notice should be pasted in some conspicuous place in presence of two witnesses which should be counter signed by you duly notice time and date in original and send the same to reach this office before the expiry date to enable this office to put all the acknowledge copies before the Estate Officer on the said date. Please acknowledge receipt. INCHARGE LAW SECTION MUMBAI CST. Form of notice under Sub-section (1) and clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the public premises (Eviction of un-authorised occupant) Act 1971.

  19. Proforma “F” CENTRAL RAILWAY Office of the, Estate Office, Mumbai CST. No.BB/W/EO/Case No. Date : To, The Asstt. Commissioner of Police, _________________________________ Sub : Unauthorised occupation of Railway/premises.Quarter No. ___________________ Addresses : ___________________________________ ___________________________________ The Estate Officer, Mumbai has passed order under Sec. 5(I) of the public premises, eviction of unauthorized occupant Act 1971, dt. _____________ for the eviction of unauthorized occupant from the premises/mentioned in the schedule of the said order.   Your cooperation will be highly appreciated.

  20. . A copy of the said order was sent to you under this office L.No. BB.W.EQ.Case No. ____________ date ________________. Inspite of the said order the unauthorized occupant has not vacated the premises peacefully. It has been decided to execute the evicted with force commensurate with the demand of the situation on ______________________________ at ______________________ hrs. You are therefore, requested to depute necessary Police force to maintain Law and order on the appointed day & time so that the said Rly. Premises may be taken over by the Inspector of work in presence of your staff. In case if quarter is found locked at the time of executing the eviction lock should be broken open and Panchanama should be held by the City Police. For Divl. Rly. Manager(Works)CSTM Copy to : 1. Inspector of City Police _______________. He is requested to take necessary action in this matter by rendering his held to IOW for taking over the said Rly. Premises. He is also requested to arrange for Lady Police for the operation. If the Quarter/Shop is found lock you are requested to open the lock and carry our eviction programme.

  21. 2. Asstt. Security Commissioner RPF _____________________. He is requested to depute some RPF staff to Assist, IOW concerned. He is requested to ensure to help, if the quarter/shop is found lock. You are requested to open the lock and carry out eviction programme. 3. IOW(M) ____________________ for information & necessary action. He should be present at the site on the Day & time fixed along with requisite staff to take over above premises. He should contact the State Police and RPF staff well in advance and should also contact them against the morning of the day of eviction & should be along with them to site to evict the unauthorized occupant. He should report the matter immediately to undersigned. If the quarter/shop is found locked you are requested to take the necessary help of City Police & RPF staff to open the lock and carry out eviction programme. 4. Sr. _________________ & ADEN ___________________ for information & necessary action. 5. Inspector RPF _________________ for information & necessary action. 6. IOW Demolition. He will be present & get the eviction programme complied with.

  22. 7. Dy. Superintendent of GRP _________________________. He is requested to depute his staff for completion of the programme. 8. Electrical Supttd. _______________________ for necessary action please. DRM(W)CSTM

  23. Case No.1 Sub : Tehbazari shop case – H.A. Qureshi and 42 others History of the case As per the Railway Board’s instruction Tehbazari shops were allotted to unemployed persons as laid down policies. In this scheme, 43 shops were allotted approx. in the year 1980 at Byculla for their livelihood. The shops are of temporary nature. The same land was required to the Railways for the pay and park for cycle and scooters stand for the benefit of commuters and also intend to develop the circulating area of the station by winding the existing platform No.4 for convenience of commuters. Departmental notice Department has issued the notices on 3.11.2001 to all the 43 shop owners on the above grounds and terminated their licensees of running the business and advised to vacate the land within 30 days. Inspite of vacating, all the shopkeepers represented through the Advocate and served notice on the Railway administration. Lodging of case On 10.1.2002, department has lodged a complaint before Estate Officer stating that 30 days are over and it is necessary to vacate the said land for free movement of passengers and for pay and park facility.

  24. Notice Estate officer after scrutinizing the documents, issued notices to all the respondents on 18.2.2002 under Sub-Section– (i), Clause ‘b’ (ii) of sub-section – 2 of section – 4 of the P.P. Act 1971 and given the opportunity of personal hearing on 13.3.2002 along with the evidence. Hearings Approx. more than 15 hearings were given to the respondents. They produced their evidence also Applicant present in the matter and produced the documentary evidence and shown the necessity of the land for the development purpose. Evidence, Cross examination and argument Both the parties lead their evidence documentary and verbal, cross examined with each other in all aspects, policies of Railway Board and argued the matters on various aspects like from last 20 year ran the business, paying regular license fees, policy of 1995 regarding zopadpatti, question of their livelihood, etc.

  25. Order After listening both the parties, the Estate Officer came to the conclusion that even though there is a big question of livelihood of these 43 shopkeepers and their families, the land is required for the development of the Byculla station, which is most important in the interest of the passengers and also the tehbazari schemes is a only temporary facility as mentioned in the agreement, the license can be terminated at any point of time, when the land is required by the Railways and Railways is not bound to provide alternative space in such cases and directed to vacate the space within 15 days of publication of the order, otherwise will be evicted by force, if needed. Order for eviction was passed on 27.2.2003. Appeal All the Respondents approached to the City Civil Court, Mumbai and filed an appeal against the order for eviction of Estate Officer, same was listed as MA11/2003 and 12/2003. Appeal admitted and pending for further hearing with statuesque.

  26. also the tehbazari schemes is a only temporary facility as mentioned in the agreement, the license can be terminated at any point of time, when the land is required by the Railways and Railways is not bound to provide alternative space in such cases and directed to vacate the space within 15 days of publication of the order, otherwise will be evicted by force, if needed. Order for eviction was passed on 27.2.2003. Appeal All the Respondents approached to the City Civil Court, Mumbai and filed an appeal against the order for eviction of Estate Officer, same was listed as MA11/2003 and 12/2003. Appeal admitted and pending for further hearing with statuesque.

  27. Case No.2 Sub : Tehbazai shop case – Tukaram Chaudhary and others- Case No. 143 to 153/98 of Estate Court. History Railway administration allotted some space to the unemployed at Mumbra station under the Tehbazari Scheme for their livelihood, but after some period the policy of the railway board has changed and the said space is required for the development of the Railway, as such departmental notice was issued to all the shopkeepers and directed to vacate the premises. Instead of vacating the premises, they filed a civil application before District Court, Thane. Railway administration opposed that District Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter on the jurisdiction ground and issued notices to the parties through the P.P. Act 1971 and proceed the cases before Estate Court. Departmental Notice. Notice issued to all 11 shop keepers on 19.06.1998 directing to handover the vacant position of the concern land to SE(W)TNA within 30 days since space were required for railways own use in connection with the work of remodeling of Mumbra Railway station & their licence were terminated.

  28. Notice – Estate officer issued notice on the above ground on 30.07.1998 under section 4(1) of the PPE Act 1971. Hearing/Evidence – Estate Officer given the opportunity to both the parties and respondent submitted that they already filed the Civil suit before Civil court Thane. Order – Estate Officer passed the order under section 5(1) of the PP Act. 1st Appeal Civil Court, Thane rejected their civil application on 15.04.2003 and directed to the Railway administration their representation may be decided for the alternatives. Railway has replied to the parties that there is no provision for alternative. 2nd Appeal. Affected parties filed the appeal before High Court, Mumbai under various numbers. Hon’ble High Court dismissed all the cases stating that no undertaking has been filed by the Applicants as directed. After that the Honble Court also directed to vacate the said premises in one month and approach to the department for the alternative.

  29. 3rd Appeal before Supreme Court Parties also approached to the Supreme Court, but Supreme Court has not entertained the appeal. Case No.3 Sub : Society and unauthorized occupant case. – U. A. Parwani History Railway administration allotted Railway Employees Consumer Co-op. Society, Sion some portion of land at Sion station for their activities, which was misused by the society by subletting to Mr. U. A. Parwani. Departmental Notice. Departmental Notice dated 17.02.94 was issued to the Society and also advised to the Estate Officer for eviction proceedings. Department also issued the notice to Shri U.A. Parwani on 7.4.94 for the said unauthorized occupation and advised to the Estate Officer. The two separate cases were registered as Case No.4/95 and 5/95 respectively against the Society and Shri U.A. Parwani.

  30. . Hearings In case No.4/94, several hearings were given to the Society and Society filed their replies along with the documents. They also filed documents of Civil Suit No.3746/1988. In case No.5/94, Shri U.A. Parwani filed several evidences and documents. Order Case No.4/94 – After examining all the aspects of both the parties, Estate Officer came to the conclusion that Society has subletted the said premises to Mr. U. A. Parwani and this is unauthorized and required to vacate the said premises. Accordingly order was passed on 1.11.96 and directed to vacate the said premises within 15 days, otherwise will be evicted be force. Progress On 26.11.96 Estate Officer sealed the Society premises and stopped the activities of the Society. Before that on 25.11.96, President of the Society advised that Mr. U. A. Parwani has occupied the portion of the society unauthorizedly. Meanwhile, Shri U.A. Parwani filed a miscellaneous application before City Civil Court on 5.1.97 and requested to stop the proceedings. The same was admitted by the City Civil Court and on 12.11.97 issued directions to the Estate officer to issue the fresh notices. Accordingly the fresh notice was issued on 13.9.98 & 18.9.98 respectively and case was registered as 165/98 and 166/98.

  31. Hearings Several hearings were given in both the cases and both the parties filed their evidence. Order After examining evidence of both the parties, Estate Office came to the conclusion that Shri U.A. Parwani is in unauthorized possession of railway land and required to vacate within 15 days, otherwise will be vacated by force if needed. In case No.166/98, Estate Officer came to the conclusion that Shri U. A. Parwani has to pay compensation of Rs.79,00,375/- with interest 18% per annum up to Aprl’1998 and directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the Railway administration. Appeal Shri U.A. Parwani filed a appeal in both the cases before City Civil Court, Mumbai. They are listed as 209/2001 & 210/2001 respectively. Both the appeals were rejected by the Hon’ble City Civil Court on 10.09.2004 & 19.10.2004. 2nd Appeal Mr. U.A. Parwani filed a writ petition before Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai by WP No.8065 of 2004 in civil application No.209/2001 of City Civil Court and the same is pending with the direction that Rs.2,50,000/- should be deposited immediately before the court and the same was deposited by Mr.U.A. Parwani and stay was granted upto 29th Nov’2004.

  32. He also filed Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai in Case No.210 by 2001, which was not heard till date. Further progress It is necessary to advise to the Collector with the details of recovery of the dues and for the eviction, final order of the High Court is awaited. Case No.4 Sub : Dispute of the land between Central Railway and DGS&D about Hajibunder Depot of DGS&D. History GIP Railway signed the agreement on 1.8.1944 with the Government General in council to Director of supplies, Bombay for the lease of land admeasuring 6400 Sq. Yard and 15447.50 Sq.Yard with effect from 17.7.1972 and 27.11.1942 respectively with the condition that the subject land will not be subletted to the outsiders and will be used during the period of the war and will be handed over back after the 6 months of the war to the GIP Railway. Out of this land 3237.50 Sq. Yard was handed over to the Railways on 21.4.1952 and 6297.59 Sq.Yard on 24.3.1952. Remaining 8767.54 Sq. Yard was with DGS&D.

  33. Governor General Council in the year 1952 handed the same land to CPWD without the consent of the Railways and taxes were raised up to 1971 including rent and municipal taxes. In the year 1980 Railways advised to DGS&D the rents were hiked by 6% from 1968 to 1973 and as per the valuation report given by the Town Planning the cost of the asset is Rs.19026709/-. The matter was under correspondence up to 1982 and joint meeting was held in the year 1982 and it was decided that the rents and other dues has to be paid by CPWD and DGS&D, but after several reminders no payment was received from both. In the year 1984, Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the DGS&D as part payment and remaining amount of Rs.23,89,000/- was promised to pay time to time. In the year 1985, DGS&D again failed to pay Rs.26,60,000/- In the year 1986, Railways has sent the letter for renewal of agreement as per the new policy, but DGS&D refused. Departmental Notice On 24.9.1986, Railway sent a departmental notice to DGS&D for paying the regular license fees from 31.12.1985 and for signing the agreement, otherwise eviction procedure will be started.

  34. Reply to the notice. DGS&D refused to sign the agreement and also refused for hike of license fees and paid only part payment of Rs.2,71,474/- and also stated that the matter may be referred to the Cabinet Secretary, since this is the matter between two ministries. In the year 1999 they are ready to vacate the railway premises, but subsequently requested to refuse to vacate. Notice As per Sub-section- (i) of section – 4 of P.P.Act, Estate officer sent the notice to DGS&D for vacation of the said land and recovery of license fees. The case was listed as 14/00, subsequently numbered as 14A/00 before Estate Court. Hearing DGS&D filed their replies and evidence and also challenged the jurisdiction of estate court mentioning that the matter between the two ministries and Estate Court has no power to decide the matter and required to forward the matter to the Cabinet Secretary. Several hearings were given and number of persons attended from DGS&D.

  35. Evidence Both the parties lead the evidence, but respondents mainly pressing on the jurisdiction ground and demanding counter claim and stating matter may be forwarded to the Union Ministry, being both as Government Organization. Status of the case. Matter was fixed for the argument on 10.8.04. Shri R. K. Gupta appeared for the Respondent and still stand on the above grounds. Matter closed by the Estate Officer for the hearing and pending for the order. Meanwhile the matter has been referred to the General Manager, C.Railway for further decision and the matter is reserved for the order. Case No.5 Sub : Quarter Case – Smt Ravikumar, Director, KRCL. History Railway Quarter No.RB-V/2/7 allotted to Smt Ravikumar, ex FA&CAO, Central Railway and presently Director (Finance), Konkan Railway. During the tenure period of Central Railway, which was permitted to retain up to 30.04.2004, but after expiry of the above period, premises not vacated.

  36. Department Notice. On 21.5.2004, department advised Smt Ravikumar for unauthorized occupation of the said railway quarter and Departmental Notice dated 1.9.2004 was served on her. Lodging of case On 14.10.2004 General Manager, C.Rly lodged a case before Estate Officer for eviction of said quarter on the ground of unauthorized occupation of quarter behind permissible period and required to be evicted, since allotment of said quarter was terminated with effect from 1.5.2004. Notice Estate Officer after scrutinizing the case papers issued notice under Sub-Section –1, & Clause ‘b’ II of Sub-section – 2 of section 4 of the P.P. Act 1971 and given the opportunity for personal hearing and submission of evidence on 3.12.04. Hearings On 3.12.04, Respondent absent and filed adjournment letter. Applicant was present with all records. Estate Officer permitted application and given opportunity for 30 days for submission of the evidence. Accordingly same was advised to the Respondent by Registered Post on 3.12.04.

  37. On 3.1.05, Applicant present, but Respondent was absent and submitted his reply and order was passed for the eviction in case quarter has not been vacated within 15 days of the order. Order After listening to the Applicant and after examining the document produced by the Respondents, the Estate Officer came to the conclusion that Smt Ravikumar is in unauthorized occupant of the said quarter from 1.5.2004, since Railway Board has not extended the period for retention of the quarter and after giving proper and enough opportunity, Respondent has not vacated the said quarter and hereby directed to vacate the said quarter within 15 days of publication order otherwise will be vacated by force if needed. Same was served to both the parties in proper manner. Appeal Respondent filed an appeal before the City Civil Court, Mumbai under Section 9 of P.P. Act 1971 and challenged the proceeding of Estate Officer and asked to set aside the order. Matter came up on board on 11.3.05. After hearing both the parties, Hon,ble Civil Judge adjourned the matter to 14.3.05. On 14.03.05 the matter was heard and Applicant filed the undertaking that the said quarter will be vacated before 31.5.2005, which was considered by the Hon’ble Civil Judge on the education ground and directed to vacate before 31.5.05. Accordingly the matter heard and closed.

  38. Case No.6 Sub : Quarter Case – Case of Shri Baburao Dhasrath, Pointman History Railway administration allotted Qtr. No.K-160 at Lonavala to Baburao Dhasrath, Pointsman. During the surprise visit, it is pointed out that he has subletted the said quarter to some outsiders. Departmental Notice Department on 17.8.04 sent the notice and asked clarifications from him and advised to the Estate Officer on 31.8.2004 to follow the eviction proceeding. Notice. Estate Officer issued the notice on 9.9.04 under Section – 4 of the P.P. Act and directed to submit the documents before 24.9.04 and appear personally on 8.10.04. Hearing Several hearings were given to the party and lead the evidence by both the parties before Estate Officer. .

  39. Order After examining all the evidence, Estate Officer came to the conclusion that the said employee subletted the Quarter No.K-160 and required to vacate within 15 days of the order, otherwise will be evicted by force if needed IN THE COURT OF ESTATE OFFICER CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUMBAI CST. CASE No: 44/2004 GENERAL MANAGER C.RLY.CSTM : APPLICANT V/S SHRI. S.V.INGLE, CCM/KRCL : RESPONDENT Railway Qtr No. R/140, at BADHWAR PARK, COLABA, MUMBAI.400005.  CORUM : S.K.GARG. DATE : 04.02.2005

  40. The case before me, for the eviction of Rly Qtr No R 140 at B Park which was allotted to Shri. S.V.Ingale CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER working under KONKAN RAILWAY CORPRATION LTD the said Qtr has been allotted to him during the tenure his service in Central Railway. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent has been allotted railway Qtr No.R/140 at Budhwar Park for accommodation purpose. The respondent has been transfer to on deputation to Kokan Rly and Railway Board granted permission for retention of said quarter till 30.04.2004only, No further extension has been grated by the Railway Board till date. Hence Competent authority has cancelled the allotment of the said Qtr. w.e.f. 01.05.2004 & intimated to the respondent vide departmental notice dated 01.09.2004 mentioning to vacate the quarter as occupation of the said quarter beyond 01.05.2004 is treated as unauthorized and damage rent will be recovered from Shri. S.V.ingale for unauthorised occupation till the vacation of the said quarter. In spite of the above departmental notice dated 01.09.2004 the respondent has not vacated the said Quarter till date.

  41. Show cause notice dt.25.10.2004 has been served to the respondent to appear before me on 19.11.04 at.11.00 hrs for the evidence and hearing of the case. Accordingly the applicant’s representative present before me with all relevant records, respondent did not appears before me. I heard the applicant, The respondent has sent letter dt.08.11.2004 to me. In the letter the respondent has requested to me that the extension of Rly Qtr is under process for period beyond 30.04.2004 at Chairman Railway Board’s level and has further requested to keep pending the case till the outcome of Railway Board’s decision. Considering the above cases I adjourned the case on 24/12/2004 for the evidence of the respondent and Then the applicant sent an application dt. 14.10.2004 before me for the eviction of the respondent from the said Qtr. under the provision of public Premises Eviction of unathorised occupants Act 1971. accordingly the respondent has been informed hearing summons dated 19/12/2004 the respondent again did not appear before me, but has sent a FAX dated 18.11.2004 mentioning that he has been busy in Railway conversion committed at GOA organized my KRCL. Looking above the facts and circumstances again adjourned the case on 14/01/2005, the applicant was present with full records but respondent again did not appear before me again the respondent has sent an application dated 14/01/2005 to me mentioning that retention of Quarter of Konkan Railway officers who are working on deputation have been under consideration before Rly Board the result will court came on before full Board meeting on 13/01/2005.

  42. Looking the above aspect I again adjourned the case 04.02.2005 for the same accordingly at on 18/01/2005 summons were served to him and same was acknowledge by the respondent on 25/01/2005 None was present on behalf of respondent on behalf of respondent applicant was present and he leds his evidence. I perused all records, there has not been mentioned in any where that the extension has been granted beyond 30/04/2004. However Railway Board vide letter dt.27/08/2004 refuse extension of Quarter. On the other hand the applicants representative Shri. Sanjay R.Dhoke Jr.Clerk in his oral evidence has stated before me that the respondent is residing in the said Qtr unauthorisedly since 01/05/2004 till date, causing hardship for other serving Railway employee. He has further stated that there are huge waiting list of serving employee’s who are in urgent need of Government accommodation and the respondent can not deprive them of their rights. The applicant representative Shri. Sanjay R.Dhoke has shown me the departmental notice dt.01/09/2004. It clearly shows that the respondent has been residing in the said qtr unauthorised since 01/05/2004 till date.

  43. After perusal of the entire records evidence and hearing of both the parties I have come to the concussion that the respondent has been residing in the said qtr unauthorisedly since 01/05/2004 on wards. There fore I pass the following order under section 5 ( I ) of the public premises evocation if Unathorised occupation Act 1971. O R D E R I here by order that SHRI. S.V.INGLE or all person residing in Railway Qtr No. R/140 AT BADHWAR PARK,MUMBAI, Who may be in occupation of the said premises or any part there of particularly described in the show cause notice dated 25.10.2004 to vacate the said premises within 30 days of the date of Publication of this order. In the event of refusal / failure to comply with this order within the period specified above the said and all other persons concerned are liable to be evicted from the said premises if need be by use of such force as may be necessary. (SHRI.S.K.GARG) ESTATE OFFICER CENTRALRAILWAY CSTM

  44. IN THE COURT OF THE ESTATE OFFICER CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUMBAI CST. CASE NO: 143TO 153 OF 1998. THE UNION OF INDIA through >>> PETITIONER. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER WORKS BYCULLA. V/s 1) SHRI KARBHARI GOVIND MAHALE TEH-BAZARI SPACE NO 1 >>> RESPONDENT. MUMBRA RAILWAY STATION ( EAST ) IN CASE NOT 143 OF 1998. & Others ORDER DATED:DAY OF JUNE 2001. CORAM: SHRI P K MUDLIAR - ESTATE OFFICER. The case before me is one of eviction of the respondents above named from Teh - bazari space Nos:1 to 11 at Mumbra Railway Station (East) under the provisions of the PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT 1971.

  45. It is the case of the Petitioner Railways that the Central Railway Administration requires the railway land outside MUMBRA Railway Station for the purpose of Remodeling of the existing Mumbra station and also requires the space in the station circulating area for easing the congestion caused by the stall holder in the station circulating area to facilitate the free flow of commuters movement inside the circulating area of Mumbra Railway station. The scheme for Remodeling of MUMBRA Railway Station has been approved by the Railway department and funds therefor have been duly sanctioned but the scheme is held up because the stall holders are not vacating the premises. The Petitioner had terminated the space license issued to the respondent by its notice dated 19-6-98. Show cause notice dated 30-7-98 under section 4 (1) of the P.P.Act was served upon the respondents and they filed their appearance through advocate Shri V.D.GAUTAM. The advocate for the respondents sought time to file reply to the show cause notice which was granted. The respondent filed their written statement and raised the following points therein:- 1)        That the show cause notice was received late, 2)        The respondent was a tenant and not a licensee and hence his case was covered under the Transfer of Property Act.

  46. 3)        That the respondent had filed suit against the termination of license notice in the Thane Civil Court and that the court had passed an order that the respondent should not be evicted without following due process of law. The Petitioner gave inspection of documents relied upon by them to the advocate of respondent namely the copy of the approved Site Plan prepared for remodeling of the Station building and improvement of the circulating area. The document have been placed in the record of the case. The copy of site plan is provided to advocate of respondent. Written evidence of Shri SHIV KUMAR Assistant Engineer of the petitioner was duly recorded wherein he had stated that the space is required for remodelling of station at Mumbra and that the stalls were causing a lot of congestion and inconvenience to commuters. He has also deposed that number of passengers using Mumbra Rly station has increased considerably over the years and that the stalls cause congestion in the present day circumstances. He has also explained the drawing before me wherefrom it can be seen that the booking office is to be made and that the shops are required to be removed to ease congestion in station circulating area. Railway witness was cross-examined by advocate Gautam. Under cross the witness has admitted that the work of remodelling is going on, he has stated that new booking office has come up and old booking office is removed. He has further stated that remodelling work has started about 2 years back and is going on at present and that the shops are hindrances. The copy of evidence and cross-examination was given to advocate for respondent.

  47. The respondents led evidence through on Shri Swaminath Gupta the same was adopted for all the 11 stalls by advocate Gautam. Shri Swaminath Gupta stated that the land belongs to Railways but the structure belonged to individual stall holders. He also stated that the Rly’s have already made the new booking office. He stated that TMC has demolished some shops at Mumbra and that, he also stated that their stalls were not causing any congestion as alleged. He has deposed that before he is removed he should be given alternative space. The witness was cross-examined by advocte Suresh Kumar on 20-4-2000. The witness has admitted that commuters population has increased since the last 4 to 5 years. Advocate for applicants has also cross-examined some other witnesses who were made available for cross by respondents, but none of the witnesses could refute that there is no remodelling going on and that the commuters have not increase over the years thereby causing congestion. terms and conditions contained in writing which were accepted to by the original licensee respondent , he stated that the respondent has violated those conditions and constructed pucca structure thereon The learned advocate stated that the respondent was the licensee and the space was allotted to him under the Licensing agreement. The respondent had not given any documents which shows that the respondent is a tenant and not the licenseeHe further argued that the notice were issued in accordance with the provision of the rules and sufficient time was given to them as required under law.The learned counsel has argued that the procedures followed by the petitioner to evict the respondent is in accordance with due process of law as contemplated under the provision of P.P.Act

  48. The learned advocate has also argued that the space is required for remodeling of the station at Mumbra and for removing congestion from the station circulating area and in support of contention he relied on site plan. He further argued it is not the case of respondents that the premises are not public premises. The learned advocate has argued that the respondent be evicted from the space as the premises are required for public purpose and any delay in evicting the respondent will escalate the cost of remodelling project and that the congestion in the circulating area is increasing day by day and that it is becoming very After completion of recording of evidence the case was fixed for ARGUMENTS. Thereafter the case was adjourned on a number of occasions on the request of advocate Shri V.D. GAUTAM. Inspite of several reminders neither the respondent nor his advocate came forward for tendering Arguments nor did they file any written arguments. The case was finally fixed for arguments on 24-8-2000 wherein the respondents and his advocate remained present. Advocate Shri Suresh Kumar for the petitioner was present and he argued that the respondent was permitted to occupy a Teh-bazari space at the place marked by the railway administration upon certain specific difficult for the passengers to move easily in the station circulating area because of the presence of these stalls. Advocate for the respondents has argued that the stalls are very old and requested that alternative site should be offered to the stall holders before evicting them.

  49. I have gone through the facts of the case and have also perused the documents placed before me by both the parties, I have also gone through the evidence of the witnesses and after hearing to the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for both sides. I am of the opinion that the respondents are in unauthorised occupation of the suit premises and they still continues to occupy the same without any legal right or authority, I am of the view that the project is being delayed and the same is causing hardship to the commuters of Mumbra Railway station as the traffic of commuters has increased tremendously over the years. In my view the requirement of the petitioner is bonafied and in public interest and the project is for the betterment of the public at large. I am of the view that the remodelling can not be allowed to be delayed because of a very few stalls. I have also seen the licence agreement and am convinced that it is not obligatory for the railways to give any alternative site before evicting the occupants. I am also told that there is no policy for providing any alternative site.Therefore I pass the following order under section 5 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act 1971: ,..

  50. ORDER I hereby order that the respondent ______________________ in case NO 143 of 1998, and/or any other person occupying the Teh-bazari space No 1 at Mumbra Railway station (East) do vacate the space within 15 days of the publication hereof. In the event of refusal/failure to vacate the premises peacefully the party specified herein above or any person found to be in occupation of the space shall be removed therefrom by the use of such force as may be necessary. Dated: This _____ day of June 2001. P.K. MUDLIAR. ESTATE OFFICER.

More Related