HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.33246, 33247, 33248, 33249, 33250 and 33251 of 2014 Date: 02.12.2014 W.P.No. 33246 of 2014 Between :
G.Vovindu, S/o. Basappa, Aged 50 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.12/9, Satyanarayanapeta, Guntakal, Anantapur District.
….. Petitioner And The Estate Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal, Anantapur District and others.
….. Respondents This Court made the following:-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.33246, 33247, 33248, 33249, 33250 and 33251 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:
On 14.05.2005, notices were issued under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the petitioners alleging that they were in occupation of Railway premises and calling upon them to show-cause as to why they should not be evicted from that place. Thereafter, orders under Section 5(1) of the Act were passed directing petitioners to vacate the Railway premises within thirty days from the date of publication of order. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners and others preferred appeals under Section 9(1) of the Act, before V Additional District Judge, (FTC) Anantapur. It was contended that said order of eviction was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, without considering the replies and without considering the contentions urged by the petitioners. By judgment dated 18.02.2010, V Additional District Court set aside the said order passed by the Estate Manager on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice and held that the Estate Manager has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with regard to title of the property under summary procedure.
2. Aggrieved thereby, Railways filed W.P.No.21908 of 2011 and batch before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petitions in part upholding the findings of the District Court insofar as setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Estate Manager on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. This Court set aside the finding of the District Court on the dispute to title of the said property. This Court held that land in question undoubtedly belongs to Railways.
3. The matter was remitted to the Estate Manager to consider the replies already filed by petitioners and they were also granted liberty to file additional replies and the Estate Manager was directed to consider the contentions of the South Central Railway and the petitioners in accordance with law.
4. Insofar as the ownership of property and petitioners’ occupation of the properties belonging to the Railways, issue stood concluded by this Court in the batch of writ petitions. The only thing that was required to be considered was compliance of the principles of natural justice by the Estate Manager on the issue of eviction of the petitioners.
5. Consequent to the remand to the Estate Manager, the Estate Manager considered the objections of petitioners and claim of South Central Railway and passed orders in proceedings No.G/W.277/BG/GTL, dated 02.02.2012, holding that schedule premises is a railway property and petitioners are in illegal occupation of the same.
6. The Estate Manager in his proceedings No.G/W.277/BG/GTL held as under:
“The respondents have not established their title over the said land by producing the title deeds for more than a period of thirty years. On the other hand all the records including those produced by them clearly evidenced that the subject land has been unauthorisedly occupied by them, and trying to get it regularized by pressuring the authorities. This being government property, and any loss of government property is ultimately the loss to the community. The respondents could not establish from which date they are in continuous occupation of property in question. I am also of the view that illegal possession for any number of years cannot confer the title of the property on the respondents. A trespasser cannot get any rights over the property. As per the material available on record and evidence, I am convinced that the property in question belongs to South Central Railway and the respondents are in unauthorized occupation of the same. Accordingly the case of respondents is unsustainable.”
7. Thereafter, Estate Officer passed further orders under Section 5(1) of the Act on 30.05.2013 in G/W.274/MG-GTL/W.III. The orders dated 30.05.2013, are challenged by way of appeal under the Act before VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty. The order of eviction has become final as no challenge is made against the said order. Having considered the contentions and having noticed that original orders dated 02.02.2012 passed by competent authority are not challenged, the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed by order dated 08.08.2014 passed separately in batch of the cases.
These orders of 08.08.2014 are under challenge in these writ petitions.
8. The District Court framed the following issues for consideration.
i) Whether the appellant preferred his right and title to schedule premises by adverse possession as pleaded by him ?
ii) Whether the respondent/Estate Manager failed to consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and committed any error in ordering the eviction of appellant from the schedule premises.
iii) To what relief ?
9 With reference to the issue Nos.1 and 2, the District Court held as under:
“10.(ii). In this particular case on hand admittedly schedule premises belongs to the Indian Railways and the appellant who is in occupation of schedule premises failed to establish his right and title to the schedule premises by adverse possession as discussed earlier. But in the afore mentioned referred decision on behalf of appellant there was a dispute with respect to the title to the property in question in those referred decisions. Therefore the facts of the case on hand is entirely different to that of the facts of the case in those referred decisions. Hence said referred decisions on behalf of appellants are no way helpful to him. On the other hand the afore mentioned referred decisions on behalf of respondent/Estate Manager clearly supports the arguments of respondent counsel that respondent/Estate Manager is entitled to pass the impugned order by adopting summary procedure. ”
10. In these writ petitions also, there is no justification shown as to why the orders of the Estate Manager dated 02.02.2012 were not challenged, except for saying that even before petitioners intend to challenge the orders, further orders were passed and, therefore, further orders are only challenged.
11. Thus, issue of occupation of the Railway property by the petitioners unauthorisedly has become final. The orders passed by the Estate Officer directing the petitioners to vacate the premises have also become final and, therefore, what remained was only the consequential order. When the original orders have become final and when the declaration against the petitioners that they were in unauthorized occupation of the property belonging to the railways having become final, it is not open to the petitioners to say that they should not be evicted from the premises.
12. On 07.11.2014, when these matters were taken up for consideration, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have submitted applications to the State Government to provide alternative house sites. On their request, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted a favourable report dated 07.04.2011, but so far no formal decision was taken. It was submitted that till State Government takes a decision, they should not be thrown out from the present houses as they would be left without any dwelling house. Having regard to the said submission, the matter was adjourned for obtaining instructions by the Government Pleader as to the stage of provision of alternative house sites as recommended by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
1 3 . Learned Government Pleader produced written instructions dated 20.11.2014 furnished by the Tahsildar, Guntakal. According to the instructions furnished by the Tahsildar, six petitioners herein were allotted house site plots in Guntakal Village. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the petitioners to contend that no house sites were given to them. Since petitioners were already provided house site plots and possession was also given to them, petitioners cannot contend any more that if they are thrown own from the present dwelling houses, they would be without any shelter.
14. As seen from the order passed by the District Court, the District Judge has considered all the contentions urged by the petitioners and having applied his mind passed reasoned orders upholding the decision of the Estate Manager. There is no merit in the contentions urged by the petitioners. The orders do not suffer from any infirmity warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court.
15. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 02.12.2014 Kkm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.33246, 33247, 33248, 33249, 33250 and 33251 of 2014 Date: 02.12.2014 Kkm