JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions Nos. 1709/87 and 2037/87 are directed against a common judgment and order dated 2nd July, 1987 made by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. in civil misc. appeals Nos. 403 (Shanti Vishnoi) and 404 (Smt. Kulsom Malick) of 1986, upholding the orders (Ann. 11) dated 29-7-1986 passed by the Estate Officer (Sr. Divisional Engineer-II. Western Railway), Jaipur (respondent No. 3) under Sections 5 & 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un- authorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (for brevity. 'the Act'). Since common questions have been raised by the parties, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. Undisputedly, both the petitioners have been in occupation of two different plots (viz. No. 81A - measuring 219.11 sq. yards - Shanti Vishnoi; & No. 73 - 219.11 sq. yards - Mrs. K. Mallick) in Suraj Nagar (Civil Lines), in the alleged Scheme of Gulab Bari Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur vide allotment letters dated 26-6-1981 which were subsequently modified by letters dated 2-6-1986 allotting 302.22 sq. yds. of land to each of the petitioners. The said land is stated to have fallen in the erstwhile village Chak Sunder Ka Bas in Khasra No. 17. It is the case of the petitioners that the lands in question had been purchased by the aforesaid Sahkari Samiti in 1975 from the khatedars of the land; that after the land was allotted to the petitioners they deposited conversion charges along with penalty determined by the Land Conversion Officer (S.D.O. II), Jaipur on 2-5-1984; that, plots in question situate in Khasra No. 17 as verified by the concerned Patwari on their applications (Ann. 4); that, subsequently, one more application was filed on their behalf before the Collector Jaipur, for issuance of a certificate about the ownership of the land in regard to their respective plots-thereupon on the direction issued by the Additional Collector to the Tehsildar to get the report after enquiry from the Patwari the Patwari concerned had come to the spot on May 24, 1986 who had submitted his report on the very day; and that, after depositing the conversion charges, the petitioners constructed their houses on the alleged plots spending a huge amount. 3. After drawing a thumb-nail sketch of the primary facts, a few facts necessary to lend up to the conclusion which would be reached by us hereinafter may be narrated. 3. After drawing a thumb-nail sketch of the primary facts, a few facts necessary to lend up to the conclusion which would be reached by us hereinafter may be narrated. 4. The Assistant Engineer (II). Western Railway Jaipur (respondent No. 2) issued a notice to the petitioner, Smt. Kakom Mallick, and in the case of Shanti Vishnoi, to her husband apart from one Shri Ram Karan Singh, under Section 4(1) of the Act calling upon them to show cause as to why they) should not be evicted from the land in question in addition to removal of the constructions made thereon to which, the reply on their behalf was also filed denying the ownership of the railway. 5. In the case of the petitioner, Shanti Vishhoi, second notice of 23rd June, 1986 is also said to have been issued to her husband & the said Shri Ram Karan Singh, for eviction apart from subsequent notice issued by the respondent No. 3 calling upon them to submit the information in regard to the ownership of the land proposing an action under Section 4(1) of the Act vide Annexure 7 to which a reply dated 10-7-86 (Ann. 8) is also said to have been given by them. However, on a subsequent show cause notice dated 14-7-1986 calling upon the petitioner, Shanti Vishnoi, for removal of construction, a detailed reply along with documents is also stated to have been filed before the respondent No. 3 on 24-7-1986 vide Annexure 10. 6. The respondent No. 3 (Estate Officer) thereafter passed an order on 29th July, 1986 under Sections 5 & 5A of the Act. directing eviction of the petitioners from their houses constructed by them on their alleged plots. The respondent No. 3 held that the petitioners have been in an unauthorised occupation of the public premises i. e. railway's. The petitioner went in appeal before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which too were dismissed as stated above. Hence these petitions. 7. directing eviction of the petitioners from their houses constructed by them on their alleged plots. The respondent No. 3 held that the petitioners have been in an unauthorised occupation of the public premises i. e. railway's. The petitioner went in appeal before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which too were dismissed as stated above. Hence these petitions. 7. The first and foremost question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that before passing the impugned order of ejectment under Section 5 & 5-A of the Act, both the Estate Officer as well as the Appellate Court failed to determine the question, whether the property in question was the public premises as is defined in the Act, and in the absence of such finding the Estate Officer was not authorised to pass the order of ejectment against the petitioners. In this context, the learned counsel contended that the issue whether the property in question is a public premises or not, was to be proved by the railway authority but, in the present case it failed to found it and merely filed a map of the land on the basis of which the Estate Officer passed his order of eviction against the petitioners while the said map had also not been proved at all inasmuch as no other evidence was produced by the railway authority convincing to conclude that the property in question was a public premises as defined tinder the Act. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Railway Shri Virendra Lodha vociforcely (sic) urged that the map filed by the Railway authority was sufficient to establish that the property in question was a public premises and in this view of the matter according to him the Estate Officer was justified in passing the eviction order against the petitioners under Section 5 & Section 5A of the Act. 9. On bestowing our earnest consideration to the arguments, we find that the controversy evolved requires a more intrinsical examination. 10. 9. On bestowing our earnest consideration to the arguments, we find that the controversy evolved requires a more intrinsical examination. 10. It is admitted position that the petitioners had requested before the Estate Officer for the documents which were being relied upon by the railway authority in order to establish the property in question being public premises and on this request, the Estate Officer clarified that a railway drawing showing the railway land had already been handed over to Ram Karan Vishnoi (father of Shanti Vishnoi) and Anil Malick (husband of Smt. K. Malick) in addition to a Jaipur Development Authority's plan of Sector 7 showing the encroachment in the railway land boundary alleged to have been given the representatives of the petitioner. The Estate Officer also observed that in JDA plan of Sector 7, illegal construction on JDA and the railway land has been shown. 11. Admittedly, both the Estate Officer as also the Appellate Court held the property in question as public premises merely on the basis of a plan signed by the Manager, Jaipur State Railway Jaipur rather no other documentary evidence or oral evidence was led by the railway authority. 12. Before we deal with the arguments a brief reference to the relevant provisions of the Act would be advantageous. 13. "Public premises" have been defined in sub-section (e) of Section 2 of the Act. Under Section 4 of the Act, if any person is found in an unauthorised occupation of any public premises, a show cause notice before passing the eviction order, is required to be given by the Estate Officer. Under Section 5 of the Act, the Estate Officer is authorised (sic to pass) an eviction order in case he is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation. 14. A combined reading of the provisions contained in Section 2(e), 4, & 5 of the Act makes it precise that the Act authorises the Estate Officer to take an action against the person found in unauthorised occupation of the public premises, and before taking any action against the person alleged & found to have been in unauthorised occupation of the public premises, it is incumbent upon the Estate Officer to satisfy himself whether the property in question is proved to be a public premises'. 15. In the proceedings under the Act, the Estate Officer has to discharge quasi-judicial functions. 15. In the proceedings under the Act, the Estate Officer has to discharge quasi-judicial functions. His order is appealable one. In order to facilitate the task of the appellate court, it was obligatory upon him to pass the order with reasons so as to enable the appellate court to ascertain, whether he had really applied his mind on the materials placed before him. Undoubtedly, a party who raises dispute which requires to be decided in a a quasi-judicial manner is entitled to know at least what was considered by the authority discharging quasi-judicial functions and the reasons for arriving at a conclusion. Indeed such authority has to not only give a decision but adequate disclosure of materials justifying an order of eviction. 16. In the present case, the railway authorities attempted to establish that the objector had encroached upon railway land by relying upon the plan showing the railway boundary signed by the Manager Jaipur State Railway, Jaipur, and, the area: of encroachment marked on approved JDA drawing of Sector 7 and so also relying upon the encroachment particulars on the enlarged drawing. Here we may state that it has not come on record to show as to who had prepared the plan and whether the plan was prepared before spreading of the railway tracks or during that time alone. In the instant case. none of the persons from the engineering section did appear to prove the plan showing the railway boundary. In this view of the matter, the petitioners did not get an opportunity to examine that person who prepared the map with regard to its contents. Further, as stated earlier, in the present case, the Estate Officer so also the appellate Court passed the orders merely on basis of a plan by which also it does not appear as to whether this plan was prepared at the time when the railway track was proposed or that map was prepared after the alleged constructions of the petitioners. If the aforesaid crucial map had been prepared after the alleged construction of the houses, then no inference could be drawn that the alleged construction was made on any public premises, because for this bedrock, the original plan prepared at the time when the railway track was prepared is the only material to show that the alleged construction was made on the public premises. 17. 17. The Estate Officer as well as the District Judge on appeal took the map as establishing the facts mentioned in it as to the situation of the railway land and the house built by the objector. The question then arises is whether in the context of the facts of the case the map was material evidence which could be taken into consideration. 18. Having browsed through the map (plan) showing the railway boundary which had been signed by the Manager, State of Jaipur Railway, Jaipur, we find that this map was not a part of railway record so as to draw any presumption of truth envisaged under Section 139 of the Railway Act. It appears that this plan was prepared by the Manager who cannot be said to be an expert person because a map or plan can be prepared by the engineers who are expertise technician in the railway department. It is also a circumstance not to pass any finding on the basis of the plan produced by the railway department. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, and the features referred to above, which cannot be eschewed as irrelevant for, and so also the entire gamut of facts and circumstances which has to be adverted to on the crucial question, in our view, further the order of Estate Officer should not be taken in an isolated way but should be read along with notice issued under Section 4 of the Act. 20. Notice under Section 4 of the Act to be issued to the persons concerned shall specify grounds on which order of eviction is proposed to be made so as to enable the person to show cause against the proposed order and for this purpose. unless reasons or grounds are given in the notice of Section 4 of the Act, the proceedings initiated cannot be held to be valid and non-mentioning of the material details in the notice of Section 4 of the Act shall vitiate the whole proceedings. 21. In the light of the above observations we have perused the notices issued in these cases. In the notice given to Shanti Vishnoi, it has been mentioned that a plot measuring 12' X 26'=312 sq. ft. adjoining the plot No. 81-A Suraj Nagar Colony near Civil Lines at Jaipur belonging to railways has been unauthorisedly occupied by her. 21. In the light of the above observations we have perused the notices issued in these cases. In the notice given to Shanti Vishnoi, it has been mentioned that a plot measuring 12' X 26'=312 sq. ft. adjoining the plot No. 81-A Suraj Nagar Colony near Civil Lines at Jaipur belonging to railways has been unauthorisedly occupied by her. Similarly the contents are mentioned in the notice given to Smt. K. Malick whose number of plot is shown as plot No. 73. So, looking to the contents of the notice of Section 4 of the Act issued to the petitioners, it cannot be said that these notices contain reasons which could supplement the impugned orders so as to sustain these impugned orders. Indeed, the way in which the impugned orders have been passed shows that the Estate Officer has drawn the order in a routine manner without any material evidence on record. 22. As stated earlier, the Estate Officer has mainly relied upon inadmissible document (map). The petitioners in their reply have claimed total land as part of their plot which was allotted to them by the Housing society and which, according to the report of the Patwari concerned is situated in Khasra No. 17 of village Chak Sunder Ka Bas of Jaipur district. It has not been disputed by the railway authority that the plots mentioned in the petitions have not been allotted to the petitioners. The case of the railway department before the Estate Officer was that the petitioners constructed their houses on much more area than area allotted to them. A revenue map showing the railway track has been filed by the petitioners along with their petitions. Khasra No. 12 which is admittedly revenue land has been shown on the western side of this railway track and Khasra No. 14 is again the western side of Khasra No. 12. A look at this revenue map also shows that Khasra No. 12 is situated in between the railway track and Khasra No. 14 wherein the plots of the petitioners are situated. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to assume that any part of Khasra No. 14 or 16 is the property of the railway authority or is the public premises. In these circumstances, the impugned orders of the Estate Officer therefore, cannot be said to be a valid order. 23. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to assume that any part of Khasra No. 14 or 16 is the property of the railway authority or is the public premises. In these circumstances, the impugned orders of the Estate Officer therefore, cannot be said to be a valid order. 23. Likewise, the order of the appellate court cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. We may point here that Sections 4, 5, and 5A of the Act are confined to evict the unauthorised occupants of the public premises. It does not authorise taking away the possession of the plot constructed by the occupant over the land unless the same is not proved to be public premises or that the persons in possession or occupation have encroached upon the railway land. Without that, the proceedings cannot be initiated against the persons in occupation of the land. It is not for the railway authority to say that the petitioners constructed their houses without obtaining a valid sanction. 24. We may also observe that section 5 of the Act contemplates the recording of reasons showing that the Estate Officer was satisfied that the alleged construction is a sort of unauthorised occupation and it regaires to be evicted. As stated earlier, both, the Estate Officer as well as the Appellate Court did not decide the averments made by the petitioners in their reply, as well as the documents relied upon by them. The petitioners have taken a specific stand to defend their possession which has neither been disbelieved nor discarded by the subordinate authorities. From the perusal of the judgment of the District Judge, it appears that he was satisfied on account of mere existence of a map coupled with the fact that the Estate Officer has made a vague reference to the effect that he looked into the materials. We are unable to find out even from the judgment of the District Judge as to why the stand taken by the petitioners has been disbelieved. We are of the view that the orders of the subordinate authorities are therefore, erroneous. Mere existence of a map on record could not be taken to be sufficient to fulfil the requirement of Section 5 of the Act. The provisions of Section 5 of the Act are mandatory in nature. We are of the view that the orders of the subordinate authorities are therefore, erroneous. Mere existence of a map on record could not be taken to be sufficient to fulfil the requirement of Section 5 of the Act. The provisions of Section 5 of the Act are mandatory in nature. It contemplates the giving of reasons in support of the order with reference to the ingredients necessary for warranting summary proceedings of eviction under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Act. This is utterly lacking in both the impugned orders in these petitions. 25. In the result, these two petitions are allowed, the impugned orders dated 2nd July, 1987 of the District Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur so also the orders dated 29.7.1986 (Ann. 11) of the Estate Officer Railway Jaipur (respondent No. 3) in these petitions are hereby quashed. 26. No order as to costs.Petitions allowed. *******