Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1356 (JHR)

Gouri Shankar Jain v. Union of India

2018-06-29

AJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.01.2018 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj in Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1971’) has been dismissed. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is the Karta of undivided firm/business in the name and style of M/s Khemraj Madanlal. The said firm deals with the business of Kerosene Oil. His predecessor had purchased the oil depot situated over plot no.675-70, area 3972 sq. ft. at Railway Siding, Sahibganj from M/s Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. in or about April 1972. Thereafter, the predecessor of the petitioner requested the Railways to grant permission to run an oil depot on the said premises on payment of license fee which was accepted by the Railways and, accordingly, the license was granted in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor in the year 1972. Thereafter, the predecessor of the petitioner improved the said land and constructed some permanent structures. The petitioner and his predecessor have been paying rent of the said plot regularly to the Railways. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 11.06.1993 issued under the signature of the Divisional Railway Manager (C), Eastern Railway, Malda, informing the petitioner that the plot allotted to him stood cancelled for the reason that he was not offering traffic to the Railways and he also did not pay license fee. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation, stating therein that he is ready to offer traffic to the Railways and would like to get the oil all the way to Sahibganj by Railway tank wagon but was unable to do so on account of the refusal by the railways to offer tank wagons on piecemeal basis. Thereafter, the petitioner continued his possession over the said premises and paid rent up to 31.12.2012. Suddenly, the petitioner received a letter dated 28.01.2013 issued from the Eastern Railways, whereby he was directed to vacate the premises in view of the fact that the oil plot at Sahibganj station was already cancelled vide letter dated 11.06.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner continued his possession over the said premises and paid rent up to 31.12.2012. Suddenly, the petitioner received a letter dated 28.01.2013 issued from the Eastern Railways, whereby he was directed to vacate the premises in view of the fact that the oil plot at Sahibganj station was already cancelled vide letter dated 11.06.1993. The petitioner replied the said letter, stating therein that he cannot be treated as unauthorized occupant over the said premises. However, on 08.03.2013 the petitioner received notice dated 11.02.2013 issued under the signature of the Estate Officer, Eastern Railways under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1971, whereby the petitioner was directed to submit his reply to the show cause notice on or before 21.02.2013 as to why an order of eviction be not passed against him. On the same day, the petitioner received another notice under section 5(1) of the Act, 1971, whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within 30 days of the publication of the order. The said notice was replied by the petitioner stating that said premises was handed over to his predecessor way back in the year 1972 and the said premises has been occupied on the strength of the valid permit and licenses. However, the Estate Officer, Malda sent a letter dated 09.07.2013 issued under the provision of Section 6(1) of the Act, 1971, giving fourteen days’ time to the petitioner for removal of the remaining property on the said premises or the same would be disposed of by public auction. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal, being Civil Misc. Appeal No.03/2013, in the court of learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj under section 9 of the Act, 1971, however, the same has been dismissed by order dated 17.01.2018, giving rise to filing of the present writ petition. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the notices under sections 4(1) and 5(1) of the Act, 1971 have been served upon the petitioner on the same day i.e on 08.03.2013 and, thus, he was prevented from filing his reply to the notice u/s 4(1) of the Act, 1971 Therefore, the orders of the Estate Officer have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Kerosene oil is an essential commodity for the welfare of the general public and in case of immediate vacation of plot by the petitioner, the beneficiaries would be adversely affected. The said fact finds support from the letter no. 325 dated 06.05.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in occupation of the said premises on the strength of a valid license and has also paid up-to-date rent to the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Railways submits that the license of the petitioner was already cancelled in the year 1993 and thus he has been illegally occupying the said premises since then. The Estate Officer has rightly passed the order of eviction against the petitioner from the said premises considering the said fact. It is further submitted that the said premises is required by the Railways for its own project. It is also submitted that the impugned order of eviction has been passed after due notice to the petitioner. The learned court below has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner after considering all the grounds raised by him. Thus the writ petition needs no interference. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner is claiming that he is not an unauthorized occupant over the said premises, rather he is in possession of the said premises on the strength of a license granted to the predecessor of the petitioner by the respondent-Railways in the year 1972. Thus, the land encroachment proceeding initiated against the petitioner is not maintainable. 7. On bare perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that vide notice dated 11.06.1993 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (C), Eastern Railway, Malda, the license of the petitioner was cancelled, alleging dues of rent as well as for not offering traffic to the Railways. Although the claim of the petitioner is that when the explanation was submitted by him, the respondent-Railways allowed him to continue in the premises, however, the petitioner did not bring on record any subsequent letter issued by the Railways to suggest that the earlier letter dated 11.06.1993 was either recalled or the said licence was renewed. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he is in lawful possession of the said premises is not tenable. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he is in lawful possession of the said premises is not tenable. On perusal of the letter dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure-4), it transpires that the petitioner had given an undertaking to vacate the plot as and when required by Railways. It is the specific stand of the respondent-Railways that the said plot is required by the Railways for its own project. 8. So far as the argument of the petitioner that the impugned orders have been passed by the Estate Officer in violation of principles of natural justice, the learned court below has observed that as per the facts pleaded by the petitioner, he after receiving both the notices, being an old person delayed in contacting his Advocate and lastly on 23.03.2013 submitted representation before the Estate Officer. Learned court below has further observed that compliance of the notice and order of the Estate Officer, has not been made within the stipulated time. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned court below as it has specifically dealt with all the grounds taken by the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the Estate Officer as well as the learned court below. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.