Judgment :- Chief Justice & T.S. Sivagnanam, J 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the respondent dated 01.07.2011. The matter arises under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of an extent of 2115 sq.ft., in survey No.284/2A/1A/1, Saram Revenue Village, Puducherry with patta No.3349, he having purchased the same by sale deed dated 08.07.2008, together with a superstructure from one Mr.Antony son of Selvanathan Armel. It is stated that the respondent, who is the Estate Officer, Irrigation Division, Public Works Department, Puducherry served a notice dated 13.09.2010, purportedly under Section 5A(2) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he is prepared to remove the alleged encroachment, if it is found to exist on ground. Thereafter, the petitioner was served another notice dated 08.12.2010, enclosing copy of survey report and was directed to appear for enquiry on 29.06.2011. It is stated that the petitioner appeared for enquiry and contended that proceedings under Section 5A is not maintainable and the said provision does not apply to the proceedings initiated by the respondent. The respondent by order dated 01.07.2011, directed eviction of the petitioner from the premises on the ground that the petitioner is an encroacher. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the Principal District Court, Puducherry and the appellate authority by order dated 14.11.2011, rejected the appeal on the ground that against an order passed under Section 5A, an appeal under Section 9 is not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the order of eviction dated 01.07.2011, passed by the respondent in this writ petition. 3. The writ petition was heard on 25.11.2011, and notice was directed to be issued to the Government of Puducherry and in the mean time, it was ordered that no cohersive steps shall be taken. Subsequently, when the case was heard on 28.06.2012, we passed the following order:- Prima facie, it appears that a notice for removal of encroachment was issued in respect of the land covered under R.S.No.284/1, whereas, the petitioner's own case is that he purchased the land together with structure comprised in survey No.284/2A/1A/1. Subsequently, when the case was heard on 28.06.2012, we passed the following order:- Prima facie, it appears that a notice for removal of encroachment was issued in respect of the land covered under R.S.No.284/1, whereas, the petitioner's own case is that he purchased the land together with structure comprised in survey No.284/2A/1A/1. Hence, the petitioner is directed to produce the patta of the document in respect of R.S.No.284/1. Put up on 02.07.2012. 4. When the matter was subsequently heard, it was fairly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been issued any patta for survey No.284/1. However, the learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondent in initiating proceedings under Section 5A is itself without jurisdiction, since sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Act contemplates erection of a building or any movable or immovable structure by a person who has been allowed to occupy such public premises subject certain terms and conditions. It is submitted that the respondent stated that the petitioner encroached upon the public premises without any authority or permission and in such circumstances Section 5A(2) cannot be invoked, so as to prevent the petitioner from availing the appellate remedy. It is submitted that the procedure which ought to have been followed is as prescribed under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act and not the procedure under Section 5A. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is an encroacher of public premises and he has no legal right to continue in occupation. It is further submitted that the petitioner by letter dated 21.09.2010, admitted that he is an encroacher and requested the respondent to grant three months time to remove encroachment and thereafter, he is estopped from resisting the eviction proceedings. Further, this letter dated 21.09.2010, was suppressed by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that improvement to Krishna Nagar drain in Puducherry under phase III was sanctioned by the Government, by order dated 16.10.2006, and while carrying out the said work, the respondent found that the petitioner has encroached an extent of 0.00.3 hect., in R.S.No.284/1, which is classified as "canal" and he has constructed a building and therefore, show cause notice was issued to remove the building. On receipt of show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply admitting encroachment and requested three months time to remove the encroachment. Thereafter, another notice was issued by the respondent on 05.10.2010, directing the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing on 14.10.2010. For the first time, the petitioner sent a reply and denied the encroachment and sought to resist the eviction proceedings. Therefore, the respondent by letter dated 15.11.2010, directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent on 25.11.2010, with documents and participate in the survey to be conducted. However, the petitioner did not produce any documents in support of his claim. After survey, it was found that the petitioner had encroached an extent of 0.00.50 hect., and based on which, show cause notice under Section 5A(2) was issued on 08.12.2010. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.12.2010 and claimed to be in enjoyment of the land for several decades. The petitioner was directed to appear for personal hearing on 12.01.2011, before the respondent along with documents in support of his claim. On 03.01.2011, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer, requesting for change of Estate Office. The Chief Engineer conducted an enquiry in the presence of the petitioner and rejected the representation and directed the petitioner to co-operate in the proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 15.02.2011, with his counsel and filed objections and requested to survey the land in question. This request appears to have been accepted and the surveyor who conducted such survey confirmed that the petitioner has encroached the Government canal. After furnishing the survey report, an enquiry was conducted and the respondent passed a detailed speaking order dated 01.07.2011, to remove the building/structure from the public premises. It is submitted that the canal is situated on the western boundary of the petitioner's property which is also evident from the title deed of the petitioner's property and he has encroached the canal and such encroachment was clearly identified by the Government Surveyor. It is further stated that though the petitioner raised several objections, he was unable to produce any document in support of his claim that he is not an encroacher. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner having failed to establish his title, is liable to be evicted from the public premises. It is further stated that though the petitioner raised several objections, he was unable to produce any document in support of his claim that he is not an encroacher. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner having failed to establish his title, is liable to be evicted from the public premises. Further, the encroachment on the canal has to be removed so as to prevent flooding in the nearby housing colony. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner having admitted that he has constructed a building on a public premises, the respondent rightly issued notice under Section 5A, wherein he is empowered to remove unauthorised construction. 6. We have heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner Mrs.N.Mala, learned Additional Government Pleader Puducherry appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 7. Before we go into the technical objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 5A could not have been invoked in the instant case, we wish to point out important factual details. 8. Indisputably the land in R.S.No.284/1 is classified as "canal". The petitioner cannot claim ownership over the said property as it vests with the Government. Despite sufficient opportunity the petitioner was unable to produce any document to prove his title over R.S.No.284/1 either before the respondent, during the enquiry or before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is an encroacher of the public premises. The Department while implementing a drainage scheme found that the petitioner has encroached and initially the extent of encroachment was stated to be 0.00.36 hect., therefore, notice was issued on 13.09.2010, under Section 5A(2). The petitioner received the notice and did not raise any technical or factual objections, rather by his reply dated 21.09.2010, categorically accepted that he is an encroacher and requested three months time to remove the encroachment. When the petitioner appeared for personal hearing before the respondent on 14.10.2010, for the first time, he resisted the eviction proceedings. Even at that state, the petitioner did not raise any objections as regards power of the respondent to invoke Section 5A(2). The authority permitted the petitioner to produce documents to show that he is not an encroacher. In spite of opportunity, the petitioner was not able to substantiate his claim by producing documents. Even at that state, the petitioner did not raise any objections as regards power of the respondent to invoke Section 5A(2). The authority permitted the petitioner to produce documents to show that he is not an encroacher. In spite of opportunity, the petitioner was not able to substantiate his claim by producing documents. In the mean time, it appears that the department conducted a survey and by enclosing the survey sketch one more opportunity was granted to the petitioner by issuing a notice on 08.12.2010, and to remove the encroachment. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that he is in possession for several years. The petitioner moved the Chief Engineer for change of the Estate Officer, which plea was rejected after hearing the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the respondent along with his counsel and wanted an independent surveyor to be appointed. A subsequent survey also revealed that the petitioner has encroached the public premises and subsequently, full and effective opportunity was granted to him by the respondent and after due enquiry, an order was passed by the respondent on 01.09.2011. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any objection as regards lack of opportunity to contest the matter before the respondent in the enquiry, which was conducted. The petitioner preferred appeal before the District Court. Even in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the petitioner did not raise any grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the respondent to invoke Section 5A(2). The District Court rejected the appeal as not maintainable. Therefore in this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent dated 01.09.2011 on merits. The above facts will clearly reveal that the petitioner being an encroacher of a public premises who despite opportunity could not establish that he had any valid right, title or interest over the land in question, cannot claim any equity in his favour. In spite of opportunity granted by this Court, the petitioner was unable to produce any document to prove ownership of the said land. Further, the petitioner after receiving the show cause notice submitted his reply dated 21.09.2010, admitting encroachment and requested three months time to remove the encroachment. This reply dated 21.09.2010, is admitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of a public premises. 10. Further, the petitioner after receiving the show cause notice submitted his reply dated 21.09.2010, admitting encroachment and requested three months time to remove the encroachment. This reply dated 21.09.2010, is admitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of a public premises. 10. Next, we come to the question as to whether the respondent was right in invoking the power under Section 5A(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure under Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act alone could have been invoked and Section 5A(2) could be invoked only when the building has been erected by a person who has been allowed to occupy a public premises, subject to certain terms and conditions. To decide the question we may straightway look into Section 5A of the Act as it stood amended. Section 5A and Section 5B were added by Amending Act 61 of 1980. The said provisions further stood amended by Amending Act 35 of 1984 where not only the provisions of Section 5A and B were amended, Section 5C was introduced among other amendments. The object of Amending Act 61 of 1980 was to include suitable provisions in the Act to deal with squatting or spreading of goods and removal of unauthorised construction or encroachment on public premises. Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section 1 of Section 5A prohibits erection, placing, raising of building, structure, fixture, displaying, spreading of goods, bringing or keeping any cattle or other animal. Thus sub-section (1) of Section 5A imposes prohibition for doing any of the above mentioned activities. Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 5A, provide the procedure in cases of non-compliance or already completed acts and it contemplates issuing of notice to remove, thereafter, actual removal if the notice is not complied with or the cause shown is insufficient and recovery of the cost of removal as arrears of land revenue. Section 5B, was also introduced by Amending Act 61 of 1980. Section 5B, was also introduced by Amending Act 61 of 1980. Sub-section 1 of Section 5B empowers the Estate Officer to direct the demolition of any building or work after giving opportunity to show cause; sub-section (2) gives power to stop the carrying of any construction or work; sub-section (3) provides for the manner in which order under sub-section (1) & (2) to be affixed; sub-section (4) empowers the Estate Officer to secure compliance and sub-section (5) to realise the expenses for such demolition. Therefore, the difference between Section 5A and Section 5B, though subtle, is yet distinct. In terms of Section 5A, there is total prohibition to erect any building or structure and Section 5B applies to those constructions which contravened the authority and those which are not authorised. This distinction is apparent when we look into sub-section (1) of Section 5A which prohibits certain acts which were not prohibited prior to Amending Act 61 of 1980. Therefore, to invoke Section 5B, it is necessary that the construction must be in-contravention of the authority or in violation of such authority. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the Estate Officer in the instant case rightly invoked the sub-section (2) of Section 5A, since the petitioner contravened the prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of Section 5A. 11. Section 4 provides for a show cause notice to a person who may be in occupation or claim interest in a public premises to show cause against the proposed order of eviction and in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 4, the notice shall specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made and to afford an opportunity to show cause against the proposed order within seven days and to appear before the Estate Officer on the date specified along with evidence which they intent to produce in support of the cause shown and also for personal hearing. Therefore, Section 4 does not specifically deal with any construction or structure erected on a public premises. Section 5 provides the manner or the procedure to be followed by the Estate Officer. 12. Amending Act 61 of 1980, was introduced with the view to overcome the difficulties which have been experienced in the working of the Act and to make the administration of the Act more effective. Section 5 provides the manner or the procedure to be followed by the Estate Officer. 12. Amending Act 61 of 1980, was introduced with the view to overcome the difficulties which have been experienced in the working of the Act and to make the administration of the Act more effective. Therefore, amendments were made to Sections 4, 5 & 9 of the Act reducing the total period taken in the eviction proceeding, for reducing the period for showing cause against notice of eviction from 10 days to 7 days and such other matters. The Amending Act also proposed to include suitable provisions in the Act to deal with squatting or spreading of goods and removal of unauthorised construction or encroachments on public premises. The exception to the general prohibition is to give respect to the conditions under which public premises is being occupied by any person. Therefore, when the petitioner has violated the prohibition by raising a building on a public premises in-contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5A then the power under Section 5A(2) has to be invoked, which has been rightly done by the respondent Estate Officer. Thus, there is no error in the impugned proceeding initiated by the respondent by following the procedure under Section 5A of the Act. Further, the petitioner at the first instance admitted that he is an encroacher and sought for three months time to remove the encroachment. The said letter dated 21.09.2010, is unequivocal and candid. The petitioner has not denied such letter and in such circumstances the petitioner is estopped from resisting the eviction proceedings. 13. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed and the interim order granted earlier shall stand vacated and M.P.No.1 of 2011 is dismissed. No costs.