Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition by Union of Ministry of Defence Against Appellate Order Setting Aside Eviction Under Public Premises Act — Remands Matter for Fresh Consideration on Notice Validity and Relief. Finding of Unauthorized Occupation Not Challenged; Eviction Order Must Follow as Necessary Sequitur Under Section 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 104
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Union of India, through the Commanding Officer of INS Hansa, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 11.07.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, acting as Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 32/2006. The Appellate Authority had set aside the Estate Officer's order dated 08.03.2006 in Case No. PP(E)/01/06, which had directed eviction of the respondent, Smt. Shanti Devi, from Shop No. 14 in the Indian Navy Shopping Complex at Varunapuri, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, on the ground that she was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises. The petitioner contended that the finding of unauthorized occupation was not challenged by the respondent, and therefore the eviction order should have followed as a necessary consequence. The petitioner also argued that the notices issued under Section 4 of the Act were valid and there was no infirmity. Without prejudice, the petitioner submitted that the premises were dilapidated and needed redevelopment, and sought permission to redevelop while leaving open the issue of the respondent's entitlement to alternative premises. The respondent's counsel argued that the notices were defective and the Appellate Authority correctly set aside the eviction. The High Court held that the finding of unauthorized occupation was not challenged and was binding, and that the eviction order should ordinarily follow. However, since the Appellate Authority had found the notice invalid, the matter required remand for fresh consideration of the notice validity and the relief to be granted. The Court allowed the writ petition in part, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Estate Officer for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner may proceed with redevelopment but subject to the outcome of the fresh proceedings. The Court also directed that the respondent be given an opportunity to be heard and that the Estate Officer decide the matter expeditiously.

Headnote

A) Public Premises Act - Eviction - Notice Validity - Section 4, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - The Appellate Authority set aside the eviction order holding the notice under Section 4 was invalid, but the High Court found the notice was valid and the finding of unauthorized occupation was not challenged. The Court held that the Appellate Authority should have remanded the matter if it found any defect in the notice, rather than setting aside the eviction entirely. (Paras 2-4, 7-10)

B) Public Premises Act - Unauthorized Occupation - Consequential Eviction - Section 5, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Once a finding of unauthorized occupation is recorded and not challenged, an eviction order must follow as a necessary sequitur. The Appellate Authority erred in not ordering eviction despite such finding. (Paras 3, 7)

C) Public Premises Act - Remand - Appellate Authority's Powers - Section 9, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - The Appellate Authority has power to remand the case for fresh consideration if it finds procedural defects. The High Court directed remand to the Estate Officer for fresh consideration of the eviction notice and relief, including the possibility of redevelopment. (Paras 7-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 could set aside the eviction order on grounds of notice invalidity without remanding the matter, and whether the eviction order must follow a finding of unauthorized occupation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed in part. Impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2008 set aside. Matter remanded to the Estate Officer for fresh consideration of the eviction notice and relief. Petitioner may proceed with redevelopment but subject to outcome of fresh proceedings. Respondent to be given opportunity of hearing. Estate Officer to decide expeditiously.

Law Points

  • Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act
  • 1971
  • Section 4 notice
  • Section 5 eviction order
  • unauthorized occupation
  • appellate authority's jurisdiction
  • natural justice
  • remand
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025:BHC-GOA:2522

WRIT PETITION NO. 203 OF 2011

2025-12-17

M.S. Sonak, J.

2025:BHC-GOA:2522

Mr Raviraj Chodankar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Petitioner; Mr S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. P. Volvoikar, Advocate for the Respondent

Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Through Commanding Officer, INS, Hansa, NAS Dabolim, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa

Smt. Shanti Devi, Represented by her constituted Attorney and Husband Mr. F.B. Singh

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging appellate order under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought setting aside of appellate order and restoration of eviction order, or alternatively permission to redevelop premises

Filing Reason

Appellate Authority set aside eviction order despite finding of unauthorized occupation, on ground of notice invalidity

Previous Decisions

Estate Officer ordered eviction on 08.03.2006; Appellate Authority set aside eviction on 11.07.2008

Issues

Whether the Appellate Authority could set aside the eviction order without remanding the matter when it found the notice invalid Whether eviction order must follow a finding of unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner: Finding of unauthorized occupation not challenged; eviction must follow; notices were valid; alternatively, permit redevelopment Respondent: Notices were defective; Appellate Authority correctly set aside eviction

Ratio Decidendi

Once a finding of unauthorized occupation is recorded and not challenged, an eviction order under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 must follow as a necessary sequitur. If the Appellate Authority finds a defect in the notice under Section 4, it should remand the matter for fresh consideration rather than setting aside the eviction entirely.

Judgment Excerpts

he challenge in this Petition is to the judgment and order dated 11.07.2008 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 32/2006, by which, the learned District Judge, acting as the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (said Act), has set aside the Estate Oicer’s judgment and order dated 08.03.2006 in Case No. PP(E)/01/06, ordering the eviction of the Respondent on the ground that she was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises Mr Chodankar submitted that there is no dispute about the premises being “public premises” under the provisions of the said Act. He submitted that the Appellate Authority, by the impugned order, has recorded a inding that the Respondent was indeed in “unauthorized occupation” of the public premises. his inding has not even been challenged by the Respondent.

Procedural History

Estate Officer passed eviction order on 08.03.2006. Respondent appealed to District Judge as Appellate Authority under Public Premises Act, who set aside eviction on 11.07.2008. Petitioner filed writ petition in High Court on 2011. High Court heard and decided on 17.12.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: Section 4, Section 5, Section 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition by Union of Ministry of Defence Against Appellate Order Setting Aside Eviction Under Public Premises Act — Remands Matter for Fresh Consideration on Notice Validity and Relief. Finding of Unauthorized Occupati...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Commercial Wisdom of CoC in DHFL Insolvency, Sets Aside NCLAT’s Interference in Resolution Plan. Recoveries from Avoidance Applications Under Section 66 IBC to Benefit SRA; FD Holders’ Claims Dismissed