Disposed

Sri.H.R.Suryanarayana v. Union of India

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/58098/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRPF personnel challenged a quarter-vacation order directing monthly damages for continued occupation of family quarters. The court found entitlement questions were factual matters for statutory authorities, declined interference, disposed of the petition with liberty to appeal under Section 9, exempted limitation time, and restrained precipitate action on retirement-benefit appropriation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appeal under Section 9 with limitation exemption for 30 days; respondents directed not to act on show-cause notice regarding retirement benefits until appellate determination.

Sri.H.R.Suryanarayana Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30379 WP No. 58098 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 58098 OF 2016 (GM-PP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. H.R. SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE H.G. RAMAIASH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS INSPECTOR, COMMANDANT, 35^TH BATTALION CRPF, HUMHUMA, SRINAGAR DISTRICT, JAMMU & KASHMIR, AND RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.8, TYPE-III, GROUP CENTRE, CRPF, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 01, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

DIRECTORATE GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, BLOCK NO.1, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶14

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL SOUTH ZONE, CRPF, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 005.

¶15

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ESTATE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIGP-GC, CRPF, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30379 WP No. 58098 of 2016

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30379 WP No. 58098 of 2016

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30379 WP No. 58098 of 2016

¶28

submits that he has no other alternative efficacious remedy but to approach this Court.

¶29

1. Gajadhar Singh v. Central Industrial Security Force through Directorate Genera and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine CHH 1966.

¶30

1. Pramod Kumar v. Union of India & Others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3890.

¶31

1. Neraj Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Others in W.P.(C) 1824/2015.

¶32

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.

¶33

Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the records.

¶34

Section 9 of the Act provides as under:

¶35

" 9. Appeals .—(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under¹ [section 5 or section 5B] 2 [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

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:30379 WP No. 58098 of 2016

¶38

years standing as the district judge may designate in this behalf. (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred,—

¶39

(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 [***]

¶40

(b) in the case of an appeal from an order 5[under section 5B or section 7, within twelve days] from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant;⁶ [and]

¶41

6[(c) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 5C, within twelve days from the date of such order:]

¶42

1[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.]

¶43

(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:

¶44

2[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;]

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30379 WP No. 58098 of 2016

¶46

3[(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.]

¶47

(5) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate officer.

¶48

(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."

¶49

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.

¶50

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

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30379 WP No. 58098 of 2016

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30379 WP No. 58098 of 2016

¶56

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.

¶57

All contentions are kept open to be urged before the Authority.

¶58

In view of the above, pending IAs do not survive for consideration.

¶59

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶60

SMJ

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri.H.R.Suryanarayana v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.H.R.Suryanarayana v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvodaya Memorial Foundation Vs the Commissioner

M/S. Shree Veer Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

M/S Renaissane Design Build Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Sri. Lokeshwaraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Royal Wood Industries Vs the State of Karnataka