Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

Indian Law

The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

Act 40 of 1971
Published in Gazette 40 on 23 August 1971
Assented to on 23 August 1971
Commenced on 23 August 1971
Amended by THE PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) AMENDMENTS ACT, 2015 (Act 02 of 2015) on 13 March 2015
The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
ACT NO. 40 OF 1971

If the estate officer has information that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that he should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing within seven working days from the date of receipt of the information regarding the unauthorised occupation calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. If the estate officer knows or has reasons to believe that any person is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall forthwith issue a notice in writing calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (Sec-4)

Date: 23rd August, 1971.

SECTIONS

1. Short title, extent and commencement.
2. Definitions.
3. Appointment of estate officers.
   3A. Eviction from temporary occupation.
   3B. Eviction from residential accommodation.
4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.
5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants.
   5A. Power to remove unauthorised constructions, etc.
   5B. Order of demolition of unauthorised construction.
   5C. Power to seal unauthorised constructions.
6. Disposal of property left on public premises by unauthorised occupants.
7. Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises.
8. Powers of estate officers.
9. Appeals.
10. Finality of orders.
11. Offences and penalty.
    11A. Offences under section 11 to be cognizable.
12. Power to obtain information.
13. Liability of heirs and legal representatives.
14. Recovery of rent, etc., as an arrear of land revenue.
15. Bar of jurisdiction.
16. Protection of action taken in good faith.
17. Delegation of powers.
18. Power to make rules.
19. Repeal.
20. Validation.

Section 5 outlines the legal procedure for evicting unauthorized occupants from public premises, ensuring compliance with specific timelines and safeguards for due process. Below is a summary of the key provisions:

1. Order of Eviction:
   • Preliminary Requirements: The estate officer, after considering any cause shown, evidence presented, and conducting a personal hearing (if required), must determine if the premises are in unauthorized occupation.
   • Issuance of Eviction Order: If unauthorized occupation is confirmed, the estate officer will issue a written eviction order.
   • Timeline for Compliance: The order must specify a date by which the premises must be vacated, which cannot exceed 15 days from the date of the order.
   • Publication of Order: A copy of the eviction order must be affixed to a conspicuous part of the premises.
2. Expedited Process:
   • The estate officer should endeavor to issue the eviction order within 15 days of the notice served under Section 4(1) or 4(1A).
3. Non-Compliance with Eviction Order:
   • If the occupant fails to vacate within the stipulated time, the estate officer or an authorized officer may:
     • Evict the person forcibly if necessary.
     • Take possession of the premises.
   • This action can occur after the specified date in the order or 15 days after its publication, whichever is later.
4. Extension of Time:
   • If there are compelling reasons preventing the occupant from vacating, the estate officer may, upon recording reasons in writing, grant an additional 15 days for vacating the premises.

This provision ensures both adherence to due process and the enforcement of laws regarding the occupation of public property.

Section 9 outlines the process and conditions for filing and adjudicating appeals against orders made by the estate officer regarding public premises. Here’s a concise summary:

1. Right to Appeal:

• Appeals can be made against orders under Sections 5, 5B, 5C, or 7.
• The appellate officer is the district judge of the district where the premises are located, or a judicial officer with at least 10 years of standing designated by the district judge.

2. Timelines for Filing an Appeal:

• Order under Section 5: Within 12 days from the date of publication of the order.
• Orders under Section 5B or Section 7: Within 12 days from the date of communication of the order.
• Order under Section 5C: Within 12 days from the date of the order.

Exceptional Cases:

• Appeals filed beyond the stipulated period may be entertained if the appellate officer records sufficient compelling reasons for the delay.

3. Stay of Enforcement:

• The appellate officer may stay the enforcement of the estate officer’s order with appropriate conditions.
• Restrictions for Construction Orders (Section 5B):
  • If demolition or removal orders pertain to unfinished construction, stay orders cannot be granted without adequate security to prevent further construction until the appeal is resolved.

4. Disposal of Appeals:

• Appeals must be resolved as quickly as possible, with an aim to conclude within one month from filing.
• All parties must be given an opportunity to present their case.

5. Costs:

• The appellate officer has discretion over awarding costs of the appeal.

6. Presidency-Town Provisions:

• Presidency towns (like Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai) are considered as districts.
• The city civil court’s chief or principal judge is deemed the district judge for these areas.

This section emphasizes efficiency, fairness, and safeguards to prevent misuse of the appellate process while ensuring justice.

Section 15: Bar of Jurisdiction

This section explicitly restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings related to specific matters governed by the relevant public premises laws. Below is a detailed summary of the provisions:

1. Matters Excluded from Court Jurisdiction:

Courts cannot entertain suits or proceedings related to:

(a) Eviction:

• Eviction of persons in unauthorized occupation of public premises.

(b) Removal of Property:

• Removal of buildings, structures, fixtures, goods, cattle, or animals from public premises under Section 5A.

(c) Demolition:

• Demolition of buildings or structures made or ordered under Section 5B.

(cc) Sealing:

• Sealing of any erection, work, or public premises under Section 5C.

(d) Arrears of Rent, Damages, and Interest:

• Recovery of arrears of rent under Section 7(1).
• Damages for unauthorized use under Section 7(2).
• Interest on damages under Section 7(2A).

(e) Recovery of Specific Costs and Expenses:

• Costs of removal under Section 5A.
• Expenses of demolition under Section 5B.
• Costs awarded to the Central Government or a statutory authority under Section 9(5).
• Outstanding dues related to rent, damages, removal costs, or demolition expenses.

2. Rationale:

This provision ensures that matters pertaining to public premises are exclusively handled by designated authorities (e.g., estate officers and appellate officers) under the statutory framework. It eliminates the possibility of delaying proceedings through civil litigation.

3. Judicial Authority:

The bar reinforces that the remedies provided within the statutory scheme are exhaustive. Any grievances or appeals must follow the procedures outlined within the legislation, such as through appellate officers designated under Section 9.

By restricting court jurisdiction, the section promotes efficiency and prevents parallel legal challenges, ensuring quicker resolution of disputes regarding public premises.

Procedure of Adjudication by Estate Officer

Supreme Court in Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [(1974) 2 SCC 402 : (1975) 1 SCR 1] wherein the validity of the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 were challenged before the Court and the said contention was negatived. Alagiriswami, J. speaking for the majority, has observed as under :

“Even though the officers deciding these questions would be administrative officers there is provision in these Acts for giving notice to the party affected, to inform him of the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made, for the party affected to file a written statement and produce documents and be represented by lawyers. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding summoning and enforcing attendance of persons and examining them on oath, and requiring the discovery and production of documents are a valuable safeguard for the person affected. So is the provision for appeal to the Principal Judge of the city civil court in the city of Bombay, or to a District Judge in the districts who has got to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible, also a sufficient safeguard as was recognised in Suraj Mall Mohta case [Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri, (1955) 1 SCR 448: AIR 1954 SC 545: (1954) 26 ITR 1]”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Thummala Krishna Rao (1982 (3) SCR 500) emphasizes critical legal principles regarding the limits of summary eviction powers under statutory schemes like the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, which are relevant to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. Here’s a breakdown of the judgment and its implications:

1. Key Observations by the Supreme Court:

• Summary Proceedings Are Limited:
  • Summary eviction powers, such as those under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act or the Public Premises Act, are intended to address clear cases of unauthorized occupation. They are not suitable for resolving complex disputes of title.
• Role of Bona Fide Dispute:
  • If a bona fide dispute of title exists regarding government ownership of a property, the government cannot unilaterally decide in its favor and resort to summary eviction.
  • Such disputes require adjudication by ordinary courts of law that are equipped to handle intricate questions of title and possession.
• Factors Suggesting Bona Fide Claims:
  • Nature of Property: Historical ownership or claims arising from long-standing transactions (e.g., properties owned by princely families or their descendants).
  • Duration of Possession: Prolonged and open possession raises a prima facie inference of bona fide claims, necessitating proper judicial resolution.
• Government’s Burden:
  • Before evicting someone claiming bona fide title, the government must establish its ownership through regular legal processes.

2. Application to Public Premises Act:

• Scope of Summary Eviction (Section 5):
  • The Public Premises Act allows summary eviction of unauthorized occupants, but as in Thummala Krishna Rao, it is not the proper avenue for disputes involving genuine claims of title.
  • Where title or ownership is contested, recourse must be made to civil courts.
• Safeguards Against Arbitrary Action:
  • The principle that the government cannot act as a judge in its own cause is significant.
  • A prima facie case of ownership by the occupant necessitates judicial scrutiny, not unilateral administrative action.

3. Precedent and Practical Implications:

• Judicial Precedent:
  • The decision highlights that procedural expediency cannot override substantive justice.
  • Courts have consistently held that summary procedures should not be used as a shortcut in cases requiring detailed factual and legal analysis.
• Government Action:
  • Before invoking summary eviction powers, the government must ensure that no bona fide dispute of title exists.
  • Where such disputes arise, the government should initiate a properly constituted civil suit to establish ownership.

4. Relevance to A Specific Appeal:

The decision in Thummala Krishna Rao (1982 AIR 1081) provides clear guidance on how to approach similar cases under the Public Premises Act. It underscores that fairness, due process, and impartial adjudication are critical safeguards, especially in disputes involving significant historical claims or long-standing possession. Attempts at summary eviction without resolving underlying title disputes would likely be deemed improper.

“the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary inquiry contemplated by sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in- title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddio from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. May be, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily”.

Update: 02/12/2024