Writ Petition No. 2353 of 2013: Bombay High Court Considers Challenge to Notices Issued Under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Amidst Ownership Dispute

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging notices issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

Petitioners sought writ of mandamus directing respondents to withdraw and cancel impugned notices dated 23 May 2013 and to refrain from holding any inquiry in pursuance thereof.

Petitioners claimed absolute ownership of salt works lands since 1887 and argued that respondents lacked jurisdiction to issue eviction notices as title was disputed and required adjudication by a civil court; also contended that respondents' action was in violation of earlier High Court order directing due process.

Earlier writ petition No. 1683 of 2007 was disposed on 18 September 2008 with direction to respondents not to resume lands without following due process of law; petitioners interpreted order as requiring respondents to institute a civil suit for title. Another writ petition No. 555 of 2011 was withdrawn by petitioners.

Petitioners asserted they are absolute owners in possession since 1887 and that the salt works lands are not public premises; the impugned notices are without jurisdiction, illegal, and malafide; the respondents must first establish title in a competent civil court before seeking eviction under the PPE Act. Respondents, through the impugned notices, claimed that the lands vest in Union of India under administration of Salt Department; that the salt manufacturers held licenses under Central Excise and Salt Act which were not renewed after delicensing; that the petitioners failed to execute lease deeds or establish title in court as directed by Supreme Court in SLP No. 16065/95; hence petitioners are unauthorized occupants of public premises.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus ... directing the respondents to forthwith withdraw and cancel the notices impugned in the writ petition ... dated 23rd May, 2013 and not to take any steps including holding any inquiry in pursuance thereof. (Para 3) The grounds on which the notices have been issued ... Land admeasuring ... vest in Union of India ... Thus the salt manufacturers of Jahagir Mahal Salt Works are UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS OF THE SAID PUBLIC PREMISES. (Para 6) The salt manufacturers of Jahgir Mahal Salt Works did not comply with the conditions of lease offered to them and did not execute lease deed with the Department. (Para 6) The Bombay High Court directed renewal of licence without insisting upon requisition set out in the Notice. In the appeal ... the Supreme court of India in SLP No. 16065/95 and Companion Petitions has directed the Respondent ... to get their Title declared from the Competent Authorities. (Para 6) By an order dated 18th September 2008, this Hon'ble Court disposed off Writ Petition No. 1683 of 2007 by issuing the direction to the respondents not to resume the lands in possession of the petitioners without following due process of law. (Para 14) paragraph 4 of the said order necessarily required the Salt Department of the Union of India ... to institute a suit on title in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. (Para 16)

The petitioners, a private trust and trustee, filed Writ Petition No. 2353 of 2013 in the Bombay High Court challenging nine notices dated 23 May 2013 issued under Section 4 of the PPE Act by the Estate Officer. The notices alleged that the petitioners were unauthorized occupants of public premises comprising salt works lands at Vasai Road, Thane, and called upon them to show cause why an eviction order should not be made. The petitioners contended that they had been in undisputed ownership since 1887 and that the lands were not public premises. Earlier, in 2007, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 1683 of 2007 against similar demands; that petition was disposed on 18 September 2008 with a direction to the respondents not to resume the lands without following due process of law, which the petitioners interpreted as requiring a civil suit on title. Despite subsequent notices and an earlier withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 555 of 2011, the respondents did not institute any civil proceedings and instead issued the impugned notices under the PPE Act. The High Court reserved judgment on 21 April 2016 and pronounced it on 14 July 2016.

• Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: Section 4(1), Section 4(2)(B)(ii)
• Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944:
• Central Excise Rules, 1944: Rule 111-A, Rule 103(2)
• Indian Trusts Act, 1882:
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
• Constitution of India: Article 226