JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, the learned Railway lawyer representing the petitioner in both cases. But there is no representation from the other side. 2. As facts are substantially similar and common arguments are advanced in both matters, for the sake of brevity, the primary facts are noted from the WP(C) No.6017/2010. 3. Considering the respondent in the the WP(C) No.6017/2010, to be an unauthorized occupant of the Railway Plot No.50, measuring 41.00 Meter X 16.00 Meter, under Dag No.2989 of Nagar Mahal Mouza of Sivasagar District, the eviction of the encroacher was initiated through the Eviction Case No.EO/TSK/5026/98, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Eviction Act’). The notice of eviction was issued on 9.6.1998, under Section 5 of the Eviction Act and after receipt of that notice, the father of the respondent, namely, Bhagwandas Agarwalla preferred appeal, being Misc. Appeal No.8/1998. The learned Addl. District Judge, Sivasagar found the process to be defective but permitted the Estate Officer to draw up fresh eviction proceeding. The learned Court under its order of 25.2.2001, analogously disposed of 16 such Appeals. 4. In the WP(C) No.5996/2010, the eviction process was initiated for the Railway Plot No.48, in the same Dag number and the notice was issued to Late Golap Chand Agarwalla, in the Eviction Case No.EO/TSK/5025/98. The notice receiver then filed the Misc. Appeal No.6/1998 and this Appeal also was analogously disposed of on 25.2.2001, by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sivasagar. 5. Following the above intervention of the Court in the first process, the Estate Officer issued show cause notices on 1.9.2003 (Annexure-1), under Section 4(2)(A)(I) & (II) of the Eviction Act. The notice receiver failed to appear on 23.9.2003 and hence, the follow up notice was issued by the Estate Officer on 23.9.2003. The party appeared before the Estate Officer on 20.10.2003 but failed to produce any supporting materials to establish the bonafide of their occupation of claim over the railway land. Accordingly, the Estate Officer issued another notice on 24.2.2004, fixing the matter for hearing on 17.3.2004. 6. In response to the above notice, Anand Prakash Agarwalla (son of Bhagwandas Agarwalla) and in the 2nd case, Hiralal Agarwalla appeared in person on 17.3.2004 and their statements were recorded. Accordingly, the Estate Officer issued another notice on 24.2.2004, fixing the matter for hearing on 17.3.2004. 6. In response to the above notice, Anand Prakash Agarwalla (son of Bhagwandas Agarwalla) and in the 2nd case, Hiralal Agarwalla appeared in person on 17.3.2004 and their statements were recorded. The respondent admitted that they have no permission from the Railway Authorities to occupy the land in their possession but at the same time, they expressed their reluctance to vacate the railway land. 7. On the basis of the above proceeding and also the statement of the notice receivers, the Estate Officer, in the Eviction Case No.EO/TSK/5026/98 and also in the Eviction Case No.EO/TSK/5025/98, passed similar direction on 15.1.2005, for vacating the railway land by the encroachers, within 15 days : “ORDER SHEET NO.1 Eviction Case No.EO/TSK/5026/98 Railway Plot No.50 Plan No.TSK-L/10/97 Name of Unauthorised Occupant:- Shri Bhaggwan Das Agarwalla 1. The date of hearing was fixed on 23-09-2003. 2. The opposite party was not appeared on the date of hearing on 23-09-2003. 3. The date of hearing was fixed on 20-10-2003. The O.P. was appeared on the date of hearing on 20-10-2003. The hearing could not record/taken due to engaged in administrative work. 4. The date of hearing again was fixed on 17-03-2004. The O.P. has appeared on the date of hearing and submitted his HAZIRA and not submitted any representation against the above show cause as served for. The statement of the opposite party has been recorded. During the course of hearing the O.P. has confessed in his statement that the said plot of Rly. Land has unauthorisedly occupied by him without having any permission from Railway and agreed to vacate the Rly plot as and when required by the Railway. From the records/documents available, I am fully satisfied and come to conclusion that the O.P. has occupied the above noted plot No.50 of Railway land unauthorisedly, hence liable to be evicted from the said plot under P.P.E. Act, 1971. Hereby, the undersigned passed the following order- The opposite party should vacate the subject plot of Rly land within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order under section 5(i) of Public Premises Act. Failing of which the O.P. should be evicted from the said plot by use of force, if necessary. Hereby, the undersigned passed the following order- The opposite party should vacate the subject plot of Rly land within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order under section 5(i) of Public Premises Act. Failing of which the O.P. should be evicted from the said plot by use of force, if necessary. …………………………” “ORDER SHEET NO.1 Eviction Case No.EO/TSK/5025/98 Railway Plot No.48 Plan No.TSK-L/10/97 Name of Unauthorised Occupant:- Shri Hiralal Agarwalla 1. The date of hearing was fixed on 23-09-2003. 2. The opposite party was not appeared on the date of hearing on 23-09-2003. 3. The date of hearing was fixed on 20-10-2003. The O.P. was appeared on the date of hearing on 20-10-2003. The hearing could not record/taken due to engaged in administrative work. 4. The date of hearing again was fixed on 17-03-2004. The O.P. has appeared on the date of hearing and submitted his HAZIRA and not submitted any representation against the above show cause as served for. The statement of the opposite party has been recorded. During the course of hearing the O.P. has confessed in his statement that the said plot of Rly. Land has unauthorisedly occupied by him without having any permission from Railway and agreed to vacate the Rly plot as and when required by the Railway. From the records/documents available, I am fully satisfied and come to conclusion that the O.P. has occupied the above noted plot No.48 of Railway land unauthorisedly, hence liable to be evicted from the said plot under P.P.E. Act, 1971. Hereby, the undersigned passed the following order- The opposite party should vacate the subject plot of Rly land within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order under section 5(i) of Public Premises Act. Failing of which the O.P. should be evicted from the said plot by use of force, if necessary. …………………………” 8. As the occupier failed to vacate the railway property, the Estate Officer issued the order on 25.2.2005, under Section 5(1) of the Eviction Act, whereby the unauthorized occupants were directed to vacate the plot Nos.50 and 48, in the railway land. 9. Aggrieved by the eviction order, issued on 25.2.2005, the respondents Keshardev Agarwalla (son of Bhagwandas Agarwalla), filed the Misc. Appeal No.3/2005 and similarly, Hiralal Agarwalla, son of Golab Chand Agarwalla, presented the Misc. Appeal No.2/2005. 9. Aggrieved by the eviction order, issued on 25.2.2005, the respondents Keshardev Agarwalla (son of Bhagwandas Agarwalla), filed the Misc. Appeal No.3/2005 and similarly, Hiralal Agarwalla, son of Golab Chand Agarwalla, presented the Misc. Appeal No.2/2005. Both Appeals were disposed of with similar but separate order, on 1.2.2010, by the Addl. District Judge (FTC), Sivasagar. 10. The Appellate Authority examined the Appeals and noted certain deficiencies in the eviction process. The summary proceeding was construed like regular suit by the Addl. District Judge and since issues were not framed by the Estate Officer, this was found to be a vitiating factor. Moreover, although the notice receiver had not ever claimed to be a licensee for the railway property, the failure of the authorities to issue non-renewal license to the occupier, was found to be a legal error. The railways was treated as the landlord and their purported failure to prove the case and afford opportunities to the occupant to rebut the evidence, was construed to be in breach of the requirement of natural justice. On the basis of such reasoning, the eviction order passed against the occupiers of plot Nos.50 and 48, were set aside, under the impugned order of 1.2.2010. 11. When any public premise is occupied without any authority, the encroacher can be ousted under the Eviction Act. When the Estate Officer has information of any unauthorized occupation, he can issue show cause notice under Section 4 and then order for eviction of the unauthorized occupant, under Section 5 of the Eviction Act. The Section 2(g) of the Eviction Act defines “unauthorized occupation” and it covers those, who have no authority to occupy the public premises. 12. In the proceedings before the Estate Officer, the respondents had appeared and admitted that they do not possess any legal document, which authorize their occupation of the railway land. Moreover, they cannot be categorized as permissive occupiers or licensees or tenants, for the railway property. Thus no fault is seen in describing them as unauthorized occupants of railway property. 13. If we proceed on the above premises, the steps taken by the Estate Officer to clear the encroachers of the railway property is within the purview of the Eviction Act. Thus no fault is seen in describing them as unauthorized occupants of railway property. 13. If we proceed on the above premises, the steps taken by the Estate Officer to clear the encroachers of the railway property is within the purview of the Eviction Act. Here the process of eviction started with the notice dated 9.6.1998, but as the process was held to be legally defective and was quashed on 25.2.2001, the fresh show cause notice was issued on 1.9.2003, under Section 4(2)(A)(I) & (II) of the Eviction Act, to enable the notice receiver to present their case and to produce supporting documents, if any, in support of their occupation of the railway land. 14. The notices were duly served and the respondents appeared and their respective statements were recorded on 17.3.2004, by the Estate Officer. Their failure to produce any legal authority or supporting documents to justify their occupations, is clearly discernable and the respective statement given by Anand Prakash Agarwalla and Hiralal Agarwalla confirms the unauthorized occupation. Thus the steps taken by the Estate Officer to clear the railway property should not have been interfered by the Appellate Authority. 15. In the present matter, a fundamental error was committed by the Appellate Forum in construing the summary proceeding as regular Civil Suits and picks faults in the eviction process. The Appellate Authority in my perception misdirected itself and fell into serious error. The proceedings under the Eviction Act are not Civil Suits where issues have to be framed and finding on each issue has to be recorded by the adjudicating authority. The issue to be decided by the Estate Officer was whether the occupiers are in the category of unauthorized occupants and this aspect was certainly known to the occupiers and there is no necessity to draw up formal issue like a Suit in the eviction matter. More importantly, despite the opportunities, the respondent failed to justify their occupation of the railway land. Therefore, it is clear that due opportunity was provided by the Estate Officer. 16. While acting as the Appellate Authority, the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Sivasagar, made a Fundamental mistake by bringing elements of a Civil Suit in the summary proceeding under the Eviction Act, with all its attendant rigors of the Code of Civil Procedure and this, in my perception has resulted in erroneous finding of the Appellate Authority. 17. 16. While acting as the Appellate Authority, the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Sivasagar, made a Fundamental mistake by bringing elements of a Civil Suit in the summary proceeding under the Eviction Act, with all its attendant rigors of the Code of Civil Procedure and this, in my perception has resulted in erroneous finding of the Appellate Authority. 17. In the present matter, I notice that adequate opportunities were made available to the occupiers to enable them to justify their occupation of the railway property but they measurably failed to show any legal basis to justify the occupation of the railway land. Thus the eviction of the unauthorized occupiers, ordered by the Estate Officer, should not have been interfered by the Appellate Authority. Moreover, the respondents have failed to appear in the High Court and support the impugned order of the Appellate Authority. 18. For the foregoing discussion, I find sufficient merit in the challenge of the Railways, to the impugned order passed in the Misc. Appeal No.3/2005 and Misc. Appeal No.2/2005. Accordingly, both verdicts of the Appellate Authority are set aside and quashed. 19. With the above order, the cases stand allowed, without any order of cost. The Registry should forward a copy of this order along with the L.C.R., to the concerned Court.