Dismissed

Sri Saragadam Sivalakshmi, v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Visakhapatnam

Telangana HC24 Apr 2014WP/5990/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging eviction orders under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Upholding the finding that the land belonged to the respondent HPCL, the Court held that the lower authorities exercised valid jurisdiction and no violation of natural justice occurred, dismissing the petition to quash the eviction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Sri Saragadam Sivalakshmi, Vs Hindustan Petroleum… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION NO.5990 OF 2004

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition came to be filed by the petitioners questioning the orders of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract), Visakhapatnam, in A.S.No.81 of 2002, dated 10.02.2004 confirming the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer in E.O.No.II/16/2001 dated 22.04.2002.

¶4

2) 1^st respondent filed an application under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the 2^nd respondent-Estate Officer, seeking eviction of the petitioners and their families. After issuance of a Notice and after considering the written objections filed by both the parties, the Estate Officer framed the following issues.

¶5

1) Whether the Applicant is a Government Company?

¶6

2) Whether the Applicant is a Statutory Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971?

¶7

3) Whether the claim of the Applicant is barred by time under Art.65 of Limitation Act?

¶8

4) Whether the Show Cause Notice dated 26.06.2001 issued under Sec. 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, is without jurisdiction in view of the pendency of civil litigation before the Civil Courts and also Hon’ble High Court of A.P.?

¶9

5) Whether the Application schedule premises is originally gedda poramboke land which is the Government property or Visakhapatnam Port Trust’s property covered under lease deed dated 22.1.1957?

¶10

6) Whether the said land is covered under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and are the premises “Public Premises”?

¶11

7) Whether the Opponents are having any rights, interest and claim over the property?

¶12

8) Whether the Opponents are Unauthorised Occupants?

¶13

9) If so, whether the Unauthorised Occupants should be ordered to be evicted from the “Public Premises”?

¶14

10) Whether the damages and interest as prayed in the Application be ordered?

¶15

11) Any other incidental reliefs?

¶16

3) By an elaborate order running into about 52 pages all the issue were held in favour of the 1^st respondent and against the petitioners herein. So far as damages are concerned, damages were assessed at Rs.6125/-. Challenging this elaborate order, petitioners filed an Appeal and the same was numbered as AS.No.81/2002 on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. The learned District and Sessions Judge framed the following points for consideration:

¶17

1) Whether the petition schedule land is public premises so as to attract the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer of the HPCL?

¶18

2) Whether the Estate Officer has got the jurisdiction to decide the claims made by the appellants/occupants?

¶19

3) Whether the claim made by the applicant before the Estate Officer is barred by limitation by virtue of Art.65 of the Limitation Act?

¶20

4) Whether the schedule premises is a gedda promboke land as contended by the occupants?

¶21

5) Whether the occupants are unauthorised occupants, if so, the applicant is entitled to get the order of eviction and damages from the occupants?

¶22

6) To what relief?

¶23

7) After elaborate hearing all the points were answered in favour of the 1^st respondent and against the petitioners except the issue on damages, which was answered in favour of the petitioners and

¶24

against the respondent. So far as the damages are concerned learned Judge had found the question of damages would not arise and set aside the same, and finding on that issue became final as there was no challenge against the same. The petitioners’ contention is to the effect that the finding of both Estate Officer and Appellate Authority are erroneous and decision arrived at without taking into consideration of various facts, and that the respondents have not discharged the burden which is cast on them, but the authorities below erroneously put the burden on the petitioners to prove that the land which is in occupation of the petitioners is covered by the registered lease deed. The learned counsel for the petitioners would venture to point out various discrepancies and would urge that the orders of the authorities below needs interference of the Court.

¶25

8) A perusal of the orders of the authorities below would reveal that the authorities below had framed appropriate issues which came to be answered against the petitioners and in favour of the 1^st respondent. The questions of finding of fact as recorded by the Estate Officer to the effect that the land in occupation of the petitioners is forming part of the land which was leased in favour of the 1^st respondent has been confirmed in Appeal by the appellate authority. Except the assertion of the petitioners that this land does not form part of the land which was leased out in favour of the 1^st respondent, there is no material to take a contra view. Assuming for arguments sake it is permissible for this Court to take a contra view on facts in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, it is well settled that a writ of ‘Certiorari’ is available only when an order of an authority is passed without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that the finding as far as the jurisdiction is concerned unassailable and further the petitioners had ample opportunity before the authorities. In those circumstances the order passed by the authorities below does not require any interference in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court.

¶26

9) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶27

___________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶28

Date:24.04.2014. Ssv

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.5990 OF 2004

¶31

DATE: 2 4 TH APRIL, 2014.