Karnataka High Court
Sri.H.R.Suryanarayana vs Union Of India on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30379
WP No. 58098 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 58098 OF 2016 (GM-PP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.R. SURYANARAYANA,
S/O LATE H.G. RAMAIASH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR, COMMANDANT,
35TH BATTALION CRPF,
HUMHUMA, SRINAGAR DISTRICT,
JAMMU & KASHMIR, AND
RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.8, TYPE-III,
GROUP CENTRE, CRPF, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 01,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DIRECTORATE GENERAL
Digitally
signed by CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, BLOCK NO.1,
SUMA B N C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
Location:
High Court of NEW DELHI-110 003.
Karnataka
3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
SOUTH ZONE, CRPF,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 005.
4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
AND ESTATE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DIGP-GC,
CRPF, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30379
WP No. 58098 of 2016
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER. QUASH THE
QUARTER VACATION OFFICE ORDER DATED. 9.7.2015 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-4 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL,
UNJUST, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND IN UTTER VIOLATION OF
ARTICLES 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND
ALSO CONTRARY TO THE ORDER DATED. 14.7.2012 AND
GUIDELINES DATED. 20.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by
order dated 09.07.2015 passed by respondent No.4 in exercise
of his power under sub Section (3) of Section 7 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by which the petitioner
has been directed to pay the damages at the rate of
Rs.14,800/- per month w.e.f. 09.07.2015 or till he vacates the
family quarters or he is evicted from the family quarters as per
law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the
grounds urged in the petition submitted that the order
impugned is one without providing any opportunity to the
NC: 2024:KHC:30379
petitioner of being heard. He submits that the said order is
without reference to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs for an allotment of the Family Quarters in Central
Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Family Quarters produced at
Annexure-F. In that he submits that as per Rules 8, 11 and 16
of the Guidelines for Allotment and Occupation of Family
Quarters in CRPF, the personnel who is posted to Jammu &
Kashmir, NER (North Eastern Region) and Left Wing Extremism
(LWE) areas is entitled for extension of period of occupation up
to three years and seven years depending upon the area to
which he is posted. It is his further case that apart from that
he is also entitled for seeking extension of time on the ground
of his wards pursuing their studies. Thus, he vehemently
submits that the petitioner is fully eligible for entitlement of
benefits under these guidelines. He further submits that unless
and until the Authority determine in accordance with law
whether or not the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant, it
does not get jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under the
Act. Thus, he submits that these proceedings are one without
jurisdiction and as such the petitioner has approached this
Court. He also relied upon the following judgments and
NC: 2024:KHC:30379
submits that he has no other alternative efficacious remedy but
to approach this Court.
1) Gajadhar Singh v. Central Industrial Security
Force through Directorate Genera and Others
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine CHH 1966.
2) Pramod Kumar v. Union of India & Others
reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3890.
3) Neraj Kumar Singh v. Union of India and
Others in W.P.(C) 1824/2015.
3. In response, learned CGC appearing for the
respondents-Authority while denying the contentions of the
petitioners, submits that there is an alternative statutory
remedy of appeal provided Section 9 of the Act, the petitioner
may raise all the issues and the same will be considered in
accordance with law.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused
the records.
5. Section 9 of the Act provides as under:
"9. Appeals.--(1) An appeal shall lie from every
order of the estate officer made in respect of any
public premises under 1[section 5 or section 5B]
[or section 5C]] or section 7 to an appellate officer
who shall be the district judge of the district in
which the public premises are situate or such other
judicial officer in that district of not less than ten
NC: 2024:KHC:30379
years standing as the district judge may designate
in this behalf.
(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be
preferred,--
(a) in the case of an appeal from an order
under section 5. 3[within twelve days] from the
date of publication of the order under sub-section
(1) of that section; 4[***]
(b) in the case of an appeal from an order
[under section 5B or section 7, within twelve days]
from the date on which the order is communicated
to the appellant; 6[and]
[(c) in the case of an appeal from an order
under section 5C, within twelve days from the date
of such order:]
[Provided that the appellate officer may
entertain the appeal in exceptional cases after the
expiry of the said period, if he is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded in writing that there was
compelling reasons which prevented the person
from filing the appeal in time.]
(3) Where an appeal is preferred from an
order of the estate officer, the appellate officer may
stay the enforcement of that order for such period
and on such conditions as he deems fit:
[Provided that where the construction or
erection of any building or other structure or fixture
or execution of any other work was not completed
on the day on which an order was made under
section 5B for the demolition or removal of such
building or other structure or fixture, the appellate
officer shall not make any order for the stay of
enforcement of such order, unless such security, as
may be sufficient in the opinion of the appellate
officer, has been given by the appellant for not
proceeding with such construction, erection or work
pending the disposal of the appeal;]
NC: 2024:KHC:30379
[(4) Every appeal under this section shall be
disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously
as possible and every endeavour shall be made to
dispose of the appeal finally within one month from
the date of filing the appeal, after providing the
parties an opportunity of being heard.]
(5) The costs of any appeal under this section
shall be in the discretion of the appellate officer.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a
presidency-town shall be deemed to be a district
and the chief judge or the principal judge of the city
civil court therein shall be deemed to be the district
judge of the district."
6. Nothing is made out from the grounds urged in the
petition as to why the petitioner shall not be relegated to avail
the remedy provided under Section 9 of the Act. Except stating
that the petitioner's case has not been considered, nothing has
been canvassed. Entitlement of the petitioner seeking extension
with regard to his posting is a question of fact. Though the
petitioner has claimed that during the period 2015-16 he was
posted to Maharashtra, which according to the petitioner is LWE
Area, the same has been stoutly denied by the learned CGC for
the respondents.
7. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, cannot advert to the said factual aspects, if the petitioner
has been posted to the areas mentioned above, he would be
NC: 2024:KHC:30379
entitled for the benefit thereof. Whether the area to which the
petitioner is posted falls within excepted area or not is a matter
of fact which needs to be gone into by the Authority provided
under the Act. In that view of the matter, this Court declines
to interfere at this juncture.
8. Hence, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to
the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority under the
Act more particularly under Section 9 of the Act. It is needless
to state that the time consumed in prosecuting this petition be
exempted for the purpose of limitation, if the appeal is filed
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture
submits that the show-cause notice has been issued calling
upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the damages
determined shall not be appropriated for his retirement
benefits, which would cause extreme hardship and seeks some
protection in that regard.
NC: 2024:KHC:30379
The respondents are directed not to precipitate the
matter pursuant to the said show-cause notice, until
determination of the matter by the Appellate Court.
All contentions are kept open to be urged before the
Authority.
In view of the above, pending IAs do not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
SMJ
