THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI W.P.No.8625 of 2006 Between:
Station Staff Officer, Station Headquarters, Bolaramn, Secunderabad.
PETITIONER AND
1. Smt. K. Yellamma W/o. Late Babu (per L.R.) Tokatta Village, Tarband, Secunderabad, and another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 22.06.2001 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.M.A.No.124 of 1997.
2. Heard Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner and Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. On the complaint of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent pressed into service the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The 3rd respondent passed an order under Section 5 of the Act, in case No.1178/3/593/KY/Q dated 7.06.1997, ordering eviction of respondents 1 and 2 herein from the subject property. As against the said order, respondents 1 and 2 preferred C.M.A.No.124 of 1997 under Section 9 of the Act before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned Chief Judge, by virtue of the order dated 22.06.2001, allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the 3rd respondent. Calling in question the validity and legal acceptability of the said order, present writ petition, seeking a writ of Certiorari, came to be instituted.
4. Submissions/contentions of Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General.
a) The order of the learned Chief Judge is erroneous, contrary to law and weight of the evidence.
b) The impugned order is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act.
c) As per the provisions of the Act, the burden lies on the respondents to prove that they are not in unauthorised occupation.
d) The learned Chief Judge failed to take into consideration Ex.A.6, which demonstrates the unauthorised occupation by respondents 1 and 2.
e) The learned Chief Judge grossly erred in setting aside the order of eviction passed by the 3rd respondent after following the principles of natural justice.
f) In the absence of any proof of title filed by the respondents, the appellate authority ought not to have meddled with the order of eviction passed by the primary authority.
5. Submissions/contentions of the counsel for respondents 1 & 2.
a) The order of the learned Chief Judge is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and there is neither irregularity nor any illegality in the impugned order, and in the absence of the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
b) In the absence of any jurisdictional error and patent infirmity, the impugned order is not amenable for correction by way of writ of Certiorari.
6. The material placed before this Court manifestly shows that basing on the complaint made by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent initiated enquiry under the provisions of the Act. During the course of enquiry before the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed Exs.A.1 to A.7 and respondents 1 and 2 filed Exs.B.1 to B.4-photographs.
7. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that the subject property falls in GLR.Sy.No.593/1, which corresponds to Revenue Sy.No.93. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the subject property is outside the same and as such it does not fall under the definition of “Public Premises” and the issue is not amenable for adjudication under this Act. The 3rd respondent eventually passed the order of eviction under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, respondents 1 and 2 filed C.M.A.No.124 of 1997 before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 9 of the Act.
8. A perusal of the order in C.M.A.No.124 of 1997 vividly shows that the learned Chief Judge, having framed the point for consideration at paragraph No.5 of the order, considered the entire evidence at paragraph No.6 of the order and held that the petitioner failed to prove that the premises is public premises as per the Act and also found fault with the 3rd respondent who observed in the order of eviction that he personally visited the premises, as the same being not statutory function of the quasi judicial authority under the Act. At paragraph No.6 of the impugned order the learned Chief Judge further observed that no notice of personal inspection was given to the respondents and no notes of inspection was available in the record. The learned Judge considered all the documents and came to the conclusion against the petitioner and in favour of respondents 1 and 2. The learned Judge also found that the petitioner failed to prove that the premises is a public premises.
9. Another significant aspect, which needs mention at this juncture, is that the petitioner in the instant case is seeking a writ of Certiorari. The writs, in the nature of writ of Certiorari, can be issued only in the cases where there are jurisdictional errors and patent infirmities in the orders impugned and where there are perverse findings recorded. In the instant case, no such infirmities are pointed out and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Chief Judge cannot be disturbed in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of judicial review. Another significant aspect which disentitles the petitioner from claiming the relief from this Court is that though the order under challenge was passed as long back as on 22.06.2001, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2006 and no reason is forth coming as to why the petitioner did not move till 2006.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, stands closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
15th October, 2014 Js.