Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 353 (ALL)

Rameshwar Prasad v. Union Of India

1994-04-18

RAVI S.DHAVAN

body1994
JUDGMENT RAVI S.DHAVAN 1. BY two separate petitions, the petitioners in each of them, Rameshwar Prasad and Parmanand Kandpal, both of Ramkhet, district Almora, impugn the proceedings initiated by the Union of India under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971. 2. THE contention of both the petitioners in the writ petition are common. They accept that they are licensees of a very small area in Ranikhet, within the Cantonment. Rameshwar Prasad, on the area which had been licensed to him, had a kiosk, from which he carried out the trade of selling fruits and vegetables. Parmanand Kandpal also had a kiosk from which he sold cigarettes and pan. Both the kiosks were, it is contended, temporary wooden structures near the bus stand of Kumaun Motor Union Limited (K. M.U.L.) at Sadar Bazar. There is no issue on facts that both the petitioners were licensees upon a licence granted by the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet, which licence was issued under section 210 of the Cantonment Board Act. 1924. It is acknowledged in the writ petition that by letter of 13 August, 1986, the petitioners received a communication from the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Ranikhet that where as the licence has been granted by the Cantonment Board, on a wrong impression that the land belonged to the Board, it had later been discovered that the land is category, A-1 and directly controlled and managed by the military authorities. This communication to the petitioners was only a caution to them that the life of their licence was limited. It required the petitioners to remove the occupation from the land which they occupied, failing which the Competent Authority of the Board would take necessary action. The petitioners replied to this notice by their letter of 20 August, 1986 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). In reply, they acknowledged that the licence granted to them and their occupation was in pursuance of the licence granted by the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. In the letter, they requested that no proceedings for their eviction ought to be initiated. 3. IT appears that the matters rested for about five years when, after 19815, no licences having been granted to the petitioners, they received a letter on behalf of the Station Headquarters, Ranikhet, dated 12 October, 1991 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) intimating that their occupation of the land was illegal. 3. IT appears that the matters rested for about five years when, after 19815, no licences having been granted to the petitioners, they received a letter on behalf of the Station Headquarters, Ranikhet, dated 12 October, 1991 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) intimating that their occupation of the land was illegal. They were given a warning; that they must remove their occupation, failing which the proceedings for their eviction would be initiated. The petitioners replied to the letter on behalf of the Station Headquarters, Ranikhet and challenged the Station Headquarters that if they take any action, it would be contested. 4. FURTHER, the petitioners received a notice on 22 September, 1992 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) from the Station Headquaeters, Ranikhet, under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A, of the aforesaid Act, requiring them to vacate the defence land within fifteen days, failing which unauthorised occupation would be removed. The petitioners replied to this notice on 29 September, 1992 (Annexure- 12 to the writ petition). In their reply, they submitted that they were not trespassers but licensees. The Estate Officer granted the petitioner a personal interview on the proceedings. The Estate Officer recorded that the licences having been cancelled, the petitioners continued as unauthorised occupants of government land, and thus, ordered, under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971, that all the persons who may occupy the premises or any part of it should, vacate the occupation within fifteen days of the order, failing which they would be evicted by using such force as may be necessary. The order was issued on 12 October, 1992 under the directions of an Officer case the rank of a Brigadier, Station Headquarters, Ranikhet, otherwise the Estate Officer under the Act, aforesaid. 5. FOLLOWING the order of the Estate Officer dated 12 October, 1992, the petitioners received notices, as show cause notices, on their eviction The notices were addressed to six persons. The petitioners, aforesaid, were also included in the notice. The notice is dated 9 October, 1992 Annexure-16 to the writ petition). Even after the show came notices after an order of eviction, which this Court terms as an additional opportunity granted to the petitioners, the orders of eviction were withheld by the Estate' Officer. 6. The petitioners, aforesaid, were also included in the notice. The notice is dated 9 October, 1992 Annexure-16 to the writ petition). Even after the show came notices after an order of eviction, which this Court terms as an additional opportunity granted to the petitioners, the orders of eviction were withheld by the Estate' Officer. 6. FROM the decision of the Estate Officer dated 12 October, 1992, the petitioner, Rameshwar Prasad, filed am Eviction Appeal No. 24 of 1992, and Parmanand Kandpal also filed Eviction Appeal No. 25 of 1992, before the District Judge, Almora. The learned District Judge, Almora dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 30th March, 1994, appended as Annexure-20 to the writ petition. As before the District Judge, Almora, likewise before this Court, on the writ petition, the argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Brigadier, Station Headquarters, was not vested with an authority to initiate proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for evicting the petitioner as these proceedings were invalid as the permission to occupy the land on which their kiosk stood had been granted by the Cantonment Board. This Court is not Impressed by this argument as the licence which may have been granted by the Cantonment Board, was rendered by mistake, and as far the petitioners are concerned they utilised it to their advantage. Further, notwithstanding that the licence was granted to the petitioners by the Cantonment Board, the military authorities did not take any immediate action for five years. When they did come around to taking action against the petitioners they took it out under the Act, aforesaid, after due notice to the petitioners for submitting whatever they desire. The jurisdiction of (the Estate Officer cannot be challenged, more so in the present circumstances as all the defence lands are managed by the three wings of the armed forces as the case may be at provided under section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The fact that the proceedings were not taken out by the Cantonment Board but by the Brigadier, Station Headquarters would not help she petitioners, to extract a licence which the Cantonment Board now cannot grant The petitioners have accepted that their occupation on the, aforesaid, land granted to them by the Cantonment Board was an error. The fact that the proceedings were not taken out by the Cantonment Board but by the Brigadier, Station Headquarters would not help she petitioners, to extract a licence which the Cantonment Board now cannot grant The petitioners have accepted that their occupation on the, aforesaid, land granted to them by the Cantonment Board was an error. In these circumstances, this error was made known to them by the military and they knew of it for five years. 7. THE action of the opposite parties in the facts and circumstances of the present case, i. e. the Station Commander, Ranikhet in putting the petitioners under adequate notice that they remove their occupation from defence lands is not arbitrary as under sub-clause (3) of section 5 of the Act aforesaid, such an action is contemplated. THE nature of the occupation of the petitioners being by movable structures, such an occupation could be removed without notice. In the present case, despite the fact that the military authorities could do so without notice, whatever proceedings they took out was under due notice to the petitioners. Any order which has been passed by the Estate Officer, the military authorities waited for the petitioners to file an appeal before the Districts Judge, Almora. It is only that after the District Judge has delivered his orders and dismissed the appeals that the structures of the petitioners were removed on 9 April, 1994. 8. BEFORE this writ petition was presented on 12 April, 1994, the occupation of the petitioners had already been removed. The petition was, thus, infructuous from the date when it was brought into the Court. The last submission made before the Court is that the regard being had to the circumstances of the manner in which the petitioners had been removed, the Court permit the petitioners to re -occupy the land. Such indulgence cannot be permitted. The defence authorities are entitled to regulate the occupation of the areas which they administer provided the method an a the manner in which they do so, is in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The defence authorities have rightly taken action under the Act, aforesaid. The proceedings in pursuance of this Act are meant to summary, otherwise the purpose of the Act is defeated .Encroachment of public places and premises is to be discouraged. The defence authorities have rightly taken action under the Act, aforesaid. The proceedings in pursuance of this Act are meant to summary, otherwise the purpose of the Act is defeated .Encroachment of public places and premises is to be discouraged. Regard being had to the circumstances of a Cantonment area, and further regard being had to the fact that the matter comes from the hills of Kumaon, the only observations the Court can make is that if the defence authorities ever come around to making a planned market within the area administered by the Cantonment Board Ranikhet, they also would consider registering the petitioners for allotment of a petty shop in the planned market as it would go a long way to re-habilitating unemployed people from the hills. 9. IN so far as the actions of 'the respondents are concerned, it is certified as correct. Likewise, as the Court;, also, feels that the occupations of the hills with increased trading activities also needs to be strictly regulated so as not to lose the ecology which nature in the hills, is meant to provide. Petition does not merit admission. Dismissed, Petition dismissed.