Shantilal Kasturchand Jain, ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), The Ministry ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 244 Bom

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, C.J.

1. Rule. Mr. A.N. Samant, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. M.D. Patil, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. In the facts and circumstances, the matters have been taken up for final hearing.

2. All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners against orders of eviction passed by the Estate Officer (Central Railway), C.S.T., Bombay, on July 5, 1999 in Eviction Case Nos. 287, 289 and 290 of 1986, and partly confirmed by the Principal Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 109, 110 and 111 of 1999 on October 10, 2002.

3. Proceedings were initiated against the present petitioners under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It was alleged against the petitioners that they were in unauthorised occupation of public premises. Notices were, therefore, issued to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. After following the provisions of law and after affording opportunity of hearing, the Estate Officer came to the conclusion by recording a finding that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of public premises and were liable to be evicted. Accordingly, orders of eviction were passed against them. They were also directed to pay damages as per the final order.

4. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Estate Officer, appeals were filed by the petitioners. All the appeals came to be disposed of by a common judgment and order by the City Civil Court, Bombay on October 10, 2002.

5. As far as the finding regarding unauthorised occupation and direction to vacate the disputed premises is concerned, the order passed by the Estate Officer was confirmed by the City Civil Court. In respect of payment of damages ordered by the Estate Officer, however, the City Civil Court held that there was no justification in ordering the petitioners to pay damages, and hence, that part of the order was set aside by remitting the matters back to the Estate Officer with direction to issue fresh notice as required by Section 7 of the Act and to pass an appropriate order.

6. The order passed by the City Civil Court remanding the matter qua award of damages has not been challenged by the Railway Administration. The petitioners have filed the present petitions against order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer and confirmed by the City Civil Court.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Estate Officer and City Civil Court have committed an error of law as well as of jurisdiction in invoking and applying the provisions of the Act. It was submitted that there was a bona fide dispute as to title to the property which could not have been decided in a summary proceeding under the Act, and hence, the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction in the matter. The orders passed by the Estate Officer and confirmed by the City Civil Court are, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. It was contended that Municipal Corporation and not the Railway Administration is the owner of the property. Since the title vested in the Municipal Corporation, proceedings could not have been initiated by the Railway administration and Estate Officer could not have passed orders of eviction. The orders, therefore, must be held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the orders of confirmation passed by the City Civil Court also deserve to be quashed and set aside.

10. It was also submitted that the principles of natural justice and fair play have not been observed by the Estate Officer and on that count also, they are liable to be quashed and set aside.

11. The above contentions have been raised before the authorities below. The Estate Officer observed on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties that Railway administration was the owner of the property and, therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Railway administration were maintainable. Before the City Civil Court also, the argument was repeated. The Court, after considering the evidence on record and the fact that nothing could be shown by the Municipal Corporation to establish title to the property, held that the finding recorded by the Estate Officer could not be said to be against the evidence on record.

12. It also took into account the fact that one of the appellants, M/s. Anil Bright Steel Industries had submitted a reply in writing to the show cause notice dated August 18, 1979, that they were happy to note that the land had been taken over by Railway administration and would be under the control of Railways. It was further stated that they were prepared to pay rent to Railway administration, if the Railway administration would accept them as tenants. Their case was that they were not occupying the premises unauthorisedly. The Court also considered the fact that in the City Survey record, the land was shown to belong to Railway administration since 1928. Moreover, M/s. Karfule Private Limited filed a written statement and admitted the title of the Central Railway or Union of India. A decree was passed in pursuance of consent terms and the Railway administration has taken over the possession of the property in 1965. The court, therefore, observed that it was not open to the appellants to challenge the title of Railway administration. It was thus held that Railway administration was the owner of the property and title vested in it. If it is so, obviously the proceedings could have been initiated by Railway administration.

13. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the Estate Officer and confirmed by the City Civil Court does not require interference. At the time of hearing of these petitions, the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation did not challenge the above finding. He specifically stated that Municipal Corporation does not claim title over the suit property. We, therefore, see no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was bona fide dispute as to ownership and title and the proceedings could not have been initiated by Railway administration. The said contention has no force and must be rejected.

14. As there was no bona fide dispute regarding title to the property, the proceedings initiated by Railway administration in accordance with the provisions of the Act cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. Once this position is held to be established, it was open to the Estate Officer, on the basis of the evidence on record, to come to a conclusion, whether the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation. On the basis of the materials on record, the Estate Officer recorded a finding which was confirmed by the City Civil Court that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation and accordingly orders of eviction were passed. Such a finding is pure finding of fact. In exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, it cannot be interfered with by this Court. The orders of eviction, therefore, cannot be said to be faulty and do not call for interference.

15. Regarding violation of principles of natural justice also, in our opinion, there is no substance. There was nothing to show that Municipal Corporation was the owner of the property and the property was shown to be of Railway administration, orders of eviction were passed against the petitioners. Appreciating the evidence on record, it was held that the petitioners were in unauthorised possession and occupation of the property. By arriving at such a conclusion, it cannot be said that the Estate Officer or the City Civil Court has committed an error. The question pertains is in the realm of appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence and a finding based on such appreciation of evidence cannot be questioned in writ petitions. Even that ground also does not impress us and is hereby rejected.

16. Since the order passed by the Estate Officer and confirmed by the City Civil Court as to eviction cannot be said to be illegal, all the petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

Certified copy expedited.