Madras High Court
Union Of India vs Ramamurthy on 29 January, 2021
CRP.PD.No.3792 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.No.3792 of 2015 and
MP.No.1 of 2015
1.Union of India, rep. by its
Chief Secretary,
Government of Union territory of Puducherry,
Secretariat building, Gobert Avenue,
Puducherry-1
2.The Estate Officer,
Office of the Deputy Collector,
(Revenue) South, Villianur,
Puducherry ..Petitioners
Vs.
Ramamurthy ..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 17.12.2014 in MA.No.25
of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry by
allowing the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.D.Jearany,
for Government Pleader for
Puducherry
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sunilkumar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3792 of 2015
ORDER
The civil revision petition is arising out of the order passed
in MA.No.25 of 2013 dated 17.12.2014 on the file of the III Additional
District Judge, Puducherry thereby set aside the order passed by the
petitioners under sub section (2) of 5-A of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act 1971.
2. The petitioners issued show cause notice dated 17.07.2013
call upon the respondent as to why an order of eviction should not be
made on encroachment of Government land comprised in RS.No.32/7
of Utchimedu Revenue Village and construction of compound wall,
underground storage tank and borewall in that encroach portion. On
receipt of the same, the respondent submitted reply dated
24.07.2013. On receipt of the same, the petitioners have passed an
order of eviction dated 04.09.2013 on the ground that the encroached
portion is Government land as per the Government records. On
measurement it is ascertained that the respondent has encroached
1420 sq. feet in the Government land comprised in RS.No.32/7.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the III
Additional District Judge, Puducherry in MA.No.25 of 2013 under
section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3792 of 2015
Act. The court below set aside the order and allowed the appeal filed
by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred
this civil revision petition.
3. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that appeal would not lie under Section 9 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the
learned District Court. In support of her contention, she also cited Full
Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in the case of
Yogesh Agarwal Vs. Estate Officer and two others on
12.01.2016, wherein it is held as follows:
Section 5A and Section 5B hence operate in different situations.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Act 61 of 1980
which introduced Sections 5A, 5B and 5C indicates that the purpose of
the amendment was to overcome the difficulties which have been
experienced in the working of the Act and to make the administration of
the Act more effective. This was, inter-alia, by "including suitable
provisions in the Act to deal with squatting, or spreading of goods and
removal of unauthorised constructions or encroachments on public
premises."26. Where the erection of a construction or the execution of
any work is by a person who is in occupation of public premises under an
authority but the work is found to be contrary to the terms of the
authority or in breach of the authority, it is Section 5B which covers such
a situation. The legislature in its wisdom provided for an appeal against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3792 of 2015
an order of eviction under Section 5. The legislature provided for an
appeal against an order under Section 5B. An appeal has also been
provided against an order under Section 5C. Section 5C deals with the
power to seal unauthorised constructions. Section 7 provides for the
recovery of rent or damages and an appeal is provided against an order
passed under that Section. However, the legislature not having provided
an appeal under Section 9 in respect of an order passed under Section
5A, an appeal against an order under Section 5A would not be
maintainable.
Accordingly, the legislature not having provided any appeal Section 9
in respect of an order passed under Section 5A of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the appeal against an
order under Section 5A would not be maintainable. The Hon'ble Full
Bench of Allahabad High Court also held this exercise is impermissible.
Moreover, even though an appeal has not been provided against an
order under Section 5A, the legality of such an order is subject to
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. In the case on hand, under Section 9 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the
respondent preferred appeal as against the order passed under sub
section (2) of 5-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants), Act 1971 and the same was allowed by the court below.
When the appeal itself would not be maintainable under Section 9 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3792 of 2015
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971,
the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the
order passed in MA.No.25 of 2013 dated 17.12.2014 on the file of the
III Additional District Judge, Puducherry is set aside. However, the
respondent is at liberty to challenge the order passed by the
petitioners in the manner known to law if so advised.
29.01.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.3792 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
The III Additional District Judge,
Puducherry
CRP.PD.No.3792 of 2015
29.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
