Common order dismissing five writ petitions challenging eviction orders under the Public Premises Act. The Court held that since ownership in favor of Railways was adjudicated and no injunction operated during the pending appeal, there was no case for interference.
All writ petitions were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(7)WP-5524-19 group.doc
BDP-SPS
Bharat
D. Pandit
Digitally signed by Bharat D. Pandit Date: 2019.08.01 11:15:24 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5524 OF 2019
Noorjahan Shafique Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India Through GP And Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5525 OF 2019 Mohammad Aziz Abdul Sattar Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India Through The Govt. Pleader And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5526 OF 2019 Shafique Munnalal Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India Through GP And Ors ...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5527 OF 2019 Jamshed Illahi Khan …Petitioner Versus Union Of India Through GP & Ors ...Respondents
1/4
(7)WP-5524-19 group.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5528 OF 2019
Salim Faiyaz Khan ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India Through The Govt. Pleader And Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. R.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate I/b Mr. Dhananjay R. Prasad Singh for the Petitioners in all the above Writ Petitions.
Mr. Chetan Agrawal a/w Mr. Ujjwal Agrawal, Mr. Pravin Mengone, Mr. Pranav Dhakne, Ms. Jyoti S. Agrawal, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: 26th July, 2019
P.C.:-
1] All these Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by consent
of parties by this common order, as the issue involved therein is similar.
2] After the notice of eviction issued under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971, (For short “the Act”), Estate Officer of the RespondentsRailway Authorities has ordered eviction, which is questioned in the
2/4
(7)WP-5524-19 group.doc
present Petitions. The submissions are, initially, there was a dispute raised by an individual in regard to the ownership of the Respondents or State Government over the property in question. Apart from above, it is claimed that an appeal against the finding recorded on the aforesaid issue is pending. In the aforesaid background, proceedings for eviction against the Petitioners are not maintainable for want of title in favour of the Respondents-Authorities. In the absence of title, submissions are, the provisions of the Act ought not to have been invoked against the Petitioners.
3] The contentions of the Petitioners are resisted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents on certain factual issues.
4] It is not in dispute that the issue as regards the land in question belongs to Railways, is already adjudicated at the behest of third party in favour of the Respondents, against which, I am informed, appeal is pending in which no injunction is operating.
3/4
(7)WP-5524-19 group.doc
5] In the wake of above, I hardly notice any case for interference. Petitions fail and the same stand dismissed. However, this will not preclude the Petitioners from taking any other legal proceedings in regard to the land in question, which may be decided in accordance with law.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether eviction proceedings are maintainable when the ownership between Railways and a third party is still under appeal with no injunction operating.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Noorjahan Shafique Shaikh
Union Of India
Nitin W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
