Gujarat HC: Court Observes Error Of Additional District Judge Who Shifted The Burden On The Railway Authorities To Establish Their Legal Right To Initiate Eviction Proceedings, Quashes Order, Urges For Fresh Order

Must Read

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Follow us

In this Case, Multiple Petitions were filed by the Railway Authorities, in the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (“the PPE Act” for short). The dispute pertains to unauthorised construction of shops and encroachment on the land belonging to Railways and around the area of Netrang Railway Station.

The alleged illegal occupants were issued with a notice under the PPE Act. The Estate Officer in 2018 passed an order of eviction. The order of eviction was challenged by the alleged unauthorised occupants before the District Court, and the District Court in appeal proceedings passed an order in 2018 setting aside the eviction order of Estate Officer in 2015. It is this order in the respective petitions passed by the District Court in appeal proceedings, which is the subject matter of challenge in these Multiple Petitions.

Arguments Advanced

The Petitioners submitted that the Additional District Judge has fallen in error in allowing the appeal without considering the facts on record especially revenue entries with regard to land in question which indicate that the land was acquired by the Railways way back in the year 1953 and the effect of acquisition was also given by mutation in the revenue record in 1953. Also that the eviction proceedings were initiated against total 143 persons, of which only 17 persons have objected to eviction proceedings where the rest of the unauthorised occupants have accepted the decision of Estate Officer and have vacated the railway land of Netrang Railway Station along with other submissions. While the Respondents argue that the Railways have, in the original proceedings, failed to produce any document to substantiate their ownership of the land, where the shop of the respondent has abutted the railway land.

Decision of the Court

The Court while giving its decision found that the Railways have not established ownership of the land in question, clearly is unwarranted. The exercise was undertaken by the Public Premises Eviction Officer, where sufficient opportunity was provided to the alleged illegal occupant to produce any document to establish their any right to be in occupation of the land in question and where, before the original proceedings, the alleged illegal occupant has not discharged his burden in response to the show-cause notice. The Court further observed that the Additional District Judge had fallen in error by shifting the burden on the Railway authorities to establish their legal right to initiate eviction proceedings, and hence order is quashed and a new order is welcomed by the ADJ.

[googlepdf url=”http://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/SCA187932018_GJHC240575082018_3_17012020_watermark.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” ]


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -