High Court
Case Details
WA 394/2013 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE,THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI (AM Sapre,CJ)
Legal Reasoning
This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.296(AP) o f 2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against th e order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in abovementioned wr it petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s wr it petition and in turn confirmed the eviction orders passed by the Estate Offic er under the provisions of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unaut horized Occupants) Act, 2003 (for short hereinafter called (cid:28)The Act (cid:28)) impugned in the writ petition. So the short question which arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant’s wri t petition? Since the controversy involved in the appeal is a short one and so also the order impugned herein, we consider it apposite to reproduce infra the entire impugned order in verbatim for perusal.
Legal Reasoning
(cid:28)The petitioner challenges the order dated 23.07.2013 (Anneuxre-7), whereby the Chief Estate Officer in exercise of powers under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Pr emises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 2003 has ordered removal of the b uilding constructed by the petitioner on Govt. land at E.Sector, Naharlagun. 2. Representing the petitioner, Advocate Mr. K. Tama submits that for encroachme nt over the very same Govt. land, the Chief Estate Officer had earlier issued an eviction order on 23.04.2013 (Annexure-3) and the aggrieved noticee preferred t he appeal No.6 of 2013 to challenge the eviction order. For the record, it may b e noticed that the illegal construction was made on the land abutting the Govt. Quarter No.291 (Type-II) allotted to the petitioner’s husband Nani Khoda, who is serving as an Administrative Officer in the Directorate of Health Services, Aru nachal Pradesh. 3. Considering the 2nd eviction order was issued for the same encroachment, this court passed an interim oder on 06.08.2013 staying the eviction order dated 23. 07.2013, since the Appeal against 1st eviction order was still pending at that s tage, before the Appellte Authority. 4. Today, however the learned counsel Mr. Tama has produced the order dated 25.0 7.2013 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the petitioner’s occupation/co nstruction within the premises of the Govt. Quarter at E Sector, Itanagar was he ld to be illegal. Moreover, it is also declared that allotment of any land falli ng within 4 metres of a Govt. Quarter, cannot be made under Govt. policy. Accord ingly, the 1st eviction order dated 23.04.2013 passed against the petitioner’s h usband was upheld by dismissing the appeal. Consequently, the Chief Estate Offic er, Itanagar was directed to remove the encroachment after proper measurement in presence of all concerned. 5. As the Appellate Authority has now declared the occupation to be authorised a nd directed eviction of the noticee, Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Advocate sub mits that the 2nd eviction order for the same authorised eviction must suffer th e same fate as the 1st order passed by the Chief Estate Officer on 23.04.2013. 6. Since the occupation of the petitioner’s husband was declared to be illegal by the Appellate Authority and in the present proceeding, the unauthorised encro achment pertain to the same area for which the 1st eviction order was issued on 23.04.2013, I am of the view that this challenge is covered by the recent judgme nt dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Arunachal Prades h Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 2003. 7. Accordingly, it is declared that the order of the District Magistrate passed on 25.07.2013 will also cover the 2nd eviction order dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure -7) of the Chief Estate Officer. Consequntly, the Chief Estate Officer may remov e the unauthorised encroachment after proper measurement in presence of the depa rtmental officers and the notice. With this direction, the case is disposed of. (cid:29) Here is a case where the appellant’s husband - a responsible high Govern ment official working on the post of Administrative officer and who is allotted one Government quarter by virtue of his post apparently took advantage of his of ficial position and illegally occupied the land abutting to his Government quart er and made illegal construction over the Government land. This led to initiation of their eviction proceedings from the illegally encroac hed Government land under the Act by the Estate Officer. The appellant and her h usband contested the proceedings though there was nothing to contest for them ei ther on facts or in law and rightly lost in the first round of litigation by suf fering the eviction orders. They, instead of delivering the vacant possession of the encroached portion of the land, pursued the eviction proceedings by filing the writ petition out of which this appeal arises and having lost the petition f iled intra-court appeal. Heard Mr.P.D.Nair, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. M. Buzarbaruah, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal and hence it is liable t o be dismissed in limini. In our considered opinion, if the filing of the writ petition was misconceived, the filing the appeal was equally bad in law. It was nothing but abusing the pro cess of law in filing frivolous litigation which had no merit since inception. The only argument of learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal was that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to her because she was in p ossession of land in question. To say the least, the submission is devoid of any merit and deserves to be rejected at its threshold. In the first place, both hu sband and wife have been living together. Secondly, everything was being done by her husband through her. Thirdly, enough opportunity was granted to the appella nt and her husband to contest and despite such grant, they had nothing to argue in support of their contentions. No person, much less any Government Officials (regardless of the post which he h olds in Government set up), has a right to occupy the Government’s property/land unless it is expressly allotted to him for his official use. By no stretch of i magination, any government official can ever use any government property treatin g it to be his personal property. We, however, notice that no proceedings for recovery of damages for use of State property were initiated against the appellant and her husband though the Act in clear terms provides for recovery of proper damages from the person who is in i llegal occupation of State land. We, accordingly, direct the Estate Officer to separately initiate proceedings un der the Act for determination of damages recoverable from the appellant and her husband for illegally occupying the State’s property/largess. Let the Steps be i nitiated within three months under the Act and the proceedings be concluded with in six months after affording full opportunity to the appellant and her husband in accordance with law. We also grant one month time to the appellant and her husband to remove the ille gal structures, made on the land in question and handover vacant possession to t he State authorities failing which coercive steps be taken to remove the structu re in accordance with law With these directions, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.