PUBLIC PREMISES (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971

PUBLIC PREMISES
(Eviction of unauthorized
occupants) Act 1971
SRCETC/TBM

RAILWAY LAND HOLDING:4.23 LAKH HECTARE
BREAK-UP OF LAND UNDER VARIOUS USES-
S.No. LAND USE
(LAKH HECT.)
AREA
%AGE
1 UNDER TRACK &STRUCTURE 3.19 75.2
2 AFFORESTATION 0.43 10.14
3 CULTIVATION 0.06 1.40
4 COMMERCIAL LICENCING 0.07 1.65
5 OTHER USAGES 0.03 0.70
6 ENCROACHMENT 0.02 0.47
7 VACANT LAND 0.43 10.14
8 TOTAL 4.23 100
SRCETC/TBM

Applicable All over India – to the Public
Premises i.e. The Central Government
Property.
Commencement – The Act came into
force on 6 th September 1958 and Sec. 11,
19 & 20 came into the force on 23 rd August
1971 when the Act was published in the
gazette & Act known as P.P.Act 1971.
Estate Officer – As per Sec 2b of the Act
an officer appointed as such by the Central
Govt. under Sec. 3 of the Act.
SRCETC/TBM

Public Premises – The property which
belongs to the Central Government
including building garden, open land etc.
Appointment of the Estate Officer –
Central Govt. by the notification in the
official gazette appoints the gazetted officer
as an Estate Officer to exercise all the
powers conferred and perform the duties
imposed on Estate Officer.He is also quasijudicial
body.
Applicant – before the estate officer only
Govt. authorities are the applicant and file
the application for eviction, recovery of rent
etc. of the public property.
SRCETC/TBM

Respondent – The person who is in
possession of the Government property
unauthorisedly by trespassing /
encroachment behind the permissible
period.
Complaint – The complaint / application
filed by the applicant in the prescribed
proforma before the Estate Officer for the
eviction or recovery of rent of the public
property. This is filed by the applicant after
the departmental remedies are over and the
premises not vacated by the occupied
person.
SRCETC/TBM

Notice – under Section 4 – After
scrutinizing the application if the Estate
Officer is of an opinion that any persons
who are in unauthorized occupation of
any public premises and that they
should be evicted, the estate officer
should issue notice in the manner
hereinafter provide a notice in writing
calling upon all persons concerned to
show cause why an order of eviction
should not be made.
SRCETC/TBM

Notice should cover the following –
(1) Shall call upon all the persons
concerned to show cause.
(2) It must specify the grounds
(3) Give 7 days clear time to show cause
(4) Must call upon the person to produce
evidence
(5) Must be properly served
(6) Must be in the proforma given in Form
“B”
SRCETC/TBM

Hearing –
(1) Opportunity of personal hearing
(2) Minimum three hearing should be
given
(3) Roznama should be maintained
(4) Last opportunity with summons before
(5) Deciding the matter in presence of
respondents or ex-party
(6) Rule of natural justice to be followed
SRCETC/TBM

Summons - Serve on the respondents
and applicants time to time or attending
the matter and producing the evidence.
Passing of orders (under section 5)–
Estate Officer after hearing both the
parties and after scrutinizing the records
and evidence produced by the parties
pass the appropriate order recording all
the grounds and reason for satisfaction
and directions for vacation.
SRCETC/TBM

Order covers the following :
(1) Identity of Public Premises
(2) Name of the unauthorized occupant
(3) Date of unauthorized occupation
(4) Reasons for satisfaction.
(5) Direction for vacation
(6) Date of vacation
(7) Primary Intimation of use for force in
case of forceable vacation
SRCETC/TBM

Procedure of serving of orders
(1) One copy to be served to the
respondent by R/D
(2) One copy to be served to the
applicant
(3) One copy to be sent through
concerned Section Engineer (M) for
serving for pasting on the door
(4) One copy to be sent to the concerned
Officer-in-charge for further process
SRCETC/TBM

Disposal of property left on public
premises by unauthorized
occupants (Section-6)
Where any persons have been
evicted from any public premises has
been taken and after publishing the
notice in at least one newspaper
having circulation in the locality,
remove or cause to be removed or
dispose of by public auction any
property remaining on such premises.
SRCETC/TBM

Power to require payment of rent or
damages of public premises (Section-7)
Where any person is in arrears of rent
payable in respect of any public
premises, the estate officer may, by
order, require that person to pay the
same within such time and in such
installments as may be specified in the
order.
SRCETC/TBM

Where any person is, or has at any time
been, in unauthorized occupation of any
public premises, the estate officer may,
having regard to such principles of
assessment of damages as may be
prescribed, assess the damages on
account of the use and occupation of such
premises if any may, by order, require that
person to pay the damages within such
time and in such installments as may be
specified in the order.
SRCETC/TBM

Powers of Estate Officer (Section-8)
All the powers of Sec.5 of CPC 1908 and
exercised by the Estate Officer when trying a
suite in the following matters.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Summoning and enforcing the attendance
of any person and examining him on oath
Requiring discovery and production of
documents
Any other matter which may be prescribed
SRCETC/TBM

Appeal – As per Sec.9 of the Act
(a) In case of an appeal in order under Sec.5 –
within 12 days from the date of publication
of the order under section (I) of that
section.
(b)
(c)
In case of an appeal in order under section
5B on Sec 7 – within 12 days from the date
of communication of the order
In case of an appeal in order under Section
5C – 12 days from the date of such order.
SRCETC/TBM

IN THE COURT OF ESTATE OFFICER
CENTRAL RAILWAY
OFFICE OF THE
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
(WORKS) MUMBAI CST.
CASE NO.________________________________OF___________________
ROZNAMA DATED _____________________________________________
BEFORE THE ESTATE OFFICER SHRI.__________________________
Applicant : _____________________________________________________
Respondent : ___________________________________________________
Shri. ___________________________________________________________
Present on behalf of the applicant.
Respondent Present / Absent.
Matter Adjourned to : __________________________________________
SRCETC/TBM

IN THE COURT OF THE ESTATE OFFICER
CENTRAL RAILWAY MUMBAI CST.
EVICTION IS SOUGHT BY
No. Date :
General Manager ….. Applicant.
Central Railway
Mumbai CST.
________________ ….. Respondent.
________________
________________
To,
The Estate Officer,
Central Railway,
Mumbai CST.
It is submitted that Shri. __________________________ is in occupation of Gazetted Quarter No. ________________.
Ground for Eviction : Unauthorised occupation of Qtr. No. _______________ beyond permissible period.
Notice was served to him on ____________ (Respondent) to vacate the above mentioned Railway Quarter occupied by him (Exhibit –
A).
Although a period of _______ months and _______ days has lapsed, he has failed to hand over the said Railway Quarter in vacant
position peacefully to the Railway Administration.
Allotment of quarters has since been terminated w.e.f ___________
It is requested that the case may be instituted before your Hon’ble Court for evicting the said unauthorized occupant from the Railway
premises i.e. Railway Quarter No. ________________ under the provision of PPEU Act 1971 immediately.
For General Manager
SRCETC/TBM

Proforma “B”
CENTRAL RAILWAY
Office of the
Sr. Divisional Engineer,
Estate Officer, Central
Railway, 3 rd Floor,
Mumbai CST.
Case No. __________________ of 2000 Date :
Shri/Smt. ____________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Where as I, the undersigned am of the opinion on the grounds specified below that you are in unauthorized occupations of the public
premises mentioned in the schedule below and that you should be evicted from the premises.
GROUND
Since the railway quarter which is more particular described in the schedule below which was allotted to you has been cancelled vide
Notice dt. _________ as you had subletted the same. And you have failed to hand over the vacant possession peacefully inspite
of Departmental Notice dt. ____________. Now therefore, in pursuance of Sub-section (i) of the Act, I hereby call upon you to
show cause on or before me _______________________________ why such as order of eviction and should not be made.
And in pursuance of clause (b) (ii) of sub-division (2) of section 4, I also call upon you to appear before in me in person or through a
duly authorized representative capable of answering all material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence
which you intend to produce in support of the cause shown on ____________________ at _________________ for personal
hearing. In case you fail to appear on the said date and time, the case will be decided ex-parte.
SCHEDULE
Signature & Seal of the Estate Officer
Central Railway, Mumbai CST.
SRCETC/TBM

Proforma “D”
CENTRAL RAILWAY
3 rd Floor, Annex Bldg.,
Office of the Estate Office
Divisional Railway Manager (Works)
Mumbai CST.
Case No. _______________________________ Date :
Shri./Smt. _____________________________________
_____________________________________
Sub : Summons for hearing recording evidence
under public premises Eviction
Unauthorisedly occupants Act 1971.
----x----x----x----x----
You are informed that the case is adjourned for hearing to ___________________ at _____________ hours
in case of your default the matter shall be heard Ex-parte, which please noted.
Clerk of the Estate Court
Central Railway, Mumbai CST
Copy to : ________________________________________________________
for information. He will depute a person on the estate with the relevant documents the case and
produces the evidence in support of this case.
Copy to IOW(W) ____________________ : for information and necessary action
Clerk of the Estate Court
Central Railway, Mumbai CST
SRCETC/TBM

Proforma “E”
CENTRAL RAILWAY
OFFICE OF THE
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
(WORKS) / ESTATE OFFICER,
MUMBAI CST.
No. Case No. Date :
IOW(M) ___________________
Re : Unauthorised occupation of Railway premises/
Quarter No. ______________________________
Shri/Smt. ________________________________
Show Cause Notice/Hearing/Letter/Judgement
letter/Final Eviction Order is enclosed herewith.
----x----x----x----x----
Please arrange to hand over the same to the parties be concerned taking their acknowledgement on the
duplicate & returned to this office immediately. If the party is not available at the premises / Quarter or refuse
to accept, then the duplicate notice should be pasted in some conspicuous place in presence of two
witnesses which should be counter signed by you duly notice time and date in original and send the same to
reach this office before the expiry date to enable this office to put all the acknowledge copies before the
Estate Officer on the said date.
Please acknowledge receipt.
INCHARGE LAW SECTION
MUMBAI CST.
Form of notice under Sub-section (1) and clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the public premises
(Eviction of un-authorised occupant) Act 1971.
SRCETC/TBM

CENTRAL RAILWAY
Office of the,
Estate Office, Mumbai CST.
No.BB/W/EO/Case No. Date :
To,
The Asstt. Commissioner of Police,
_________________________________
Sub : Unauthorised occupation of
Railway/premises.Quarter No. ___________________
Addresses : ___________________________________
___________________________________
The Estate Officer, Mumbai has passed order under Sec. 5(I) of the public premises, eviction of unauthorized occupant Act 1971,
dt. _____________ for the eviction of unauthorized occupant from the premises/mentioned in the schedule of the said order. A
copy of the said order was sent to you under this office L.No. BB.W.EQ.Case No. ____________ date ________________. Inspite
of the said order the unauthorized occupant has not vacated the premises peacefully. It has been decided to execute the evicted
with force commensurate with the demand of the situation on ______________________________ at ______________________
hrs.
You are therefore, requested to depute necessary Police force to maintain Law and order on the appointed day & time so that the
said Rly. Premises may be taken over by the Inspector of work in presence of your staff. In case if quarter is found locked at the
time of executing the eviction lock should be broken open and Panchanama should be held by the City Police.
Your cooperation will be highly appreciated.
Copy to :
For Divl. Rly. Manager(Works)CSTM
1. Inspector of City Police _______________. He is requested to take necessary action in this matter by rendering his held to
IOW for taking over the said Rly. Premises. He is also requested to arrange for Lady Police for the operation. If the
Quarter/Shop is found lock you are requested to open the lock and carry our eviction programme.
SRCETC/TBM

2. Asstt. Security Commissioner RPF _____________________. He is requested to depute some RPF staff to
Assist, IOW concerned. He is requested to ensure to help, if the quarter/shop is found lock. You are requested
to open the lock and carry out eviction programme.
3. IOW(M) ____________________ for information & necessary action. He should be present at the site on the
Day & time fixed along with requisite staff to take over above premises. He should contact the State Police and
RPF staff well in advance and should also contact them against the morning of the day of eviction & should be
along with them to site to evict the unauthorized occupant. He should report the matter immediately to
undersigned. If the quarter/shop is found locked you are requested to take the necessary help of City Police &
RPF staff to open the lock and carry out eviction programme.
4. Sr. _________________ & ADEN ___________________ for information & necessary action.
5. Inspector RPF _________________ for information & necessary action.
6. IOW Demolition. He will be present & get the eviction programme complied with.
7. Dy. Superintendent of GRP _________________________. He is requested to depute his staff for completion
of the programme.
8. Electrical Supttd. _______________________ for necessary action please.
DRM(W)CSTM
SRCETC/TBM

IN THE COURT OF THE ESTATE OFFICER CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUMBAI CST.
CASE NO: 143 TO 153 OF 1998.
THE UNION OF INDIA through >>> PETITIONER.
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER WORKS BYCULLA.
V/s
1) SHRI KARBHARI GOVIND MAHALE
TEH-BAZARI SPACE NO 1 >>> RESPONDENT.
MUMBRA RAILWAY STATION ( EAST )
IN CASE NOT 143 OF 1998.
&
Others
ORDER DATED: DAY OF JUNE 2001.
CORAM: SHRI P K MUDLIAR - ESTATE OFFICER.
The case before me is one of eviction of the respondents above named from Teh - bazari space Nos:1 to 11 at
Mumbra Railway Station (East) under the provisions of the PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF
UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT 1971.
It is the case of the Petitioner Railways that the Central Railway Administration requires the railway land outside
MUMBRA Railway Station for the purpose of Remodeling of the existing Mumbra station and also requires
the space in the station circulating area for easing the congestion caused by the stall holder in the station
circulating area to facilitate the free flow of commuters movement inside the circulating area of Mumbra
Railway station. The scheme for Remodeling of MUMBRA Railway Station has been approved by the
Railway department and funds therefor have been duly sanctioned but the scheme is held up because the
stall holders are not vacating the premises. The Petitioner had terminated the space license issued to the
respondent by its notice dated 19-6-98. Show cause notice dated 30-7-98 under section 4 (1) of the P.P.Act
was served upon the respondents and they filed their appearance through advocate Shri V.D.GAUTAM.
The advocate for the respondents sought time to file reply to the show cause notice which was granted. The
respondent filed their written statement and raised the following points therein:-
SRCETC/TBM

1) That the show cause notice was received late,
2) The respondent was a tenant and not a licensee and hence his case was covered under the Transfer of
Property Act.
3) That the respondent had filed suit against the termination of license notice in the Thane Civil Court and that the
court had passed an order that the respondent should not be evicted without following due process of law.
The Petitioner gave inspection of documents relied upon by them to the advocate of respondent namely the copy of
the approved Site Plan prepared for remodeling of the Station building and improvement of the circulating area.
The document have been placed in the record of the case. The copy of site plan is provided to advocate of
respondent.
Written evidence of Shri SHIV KUMAR Assistant Engineer of the petitioner was duly recorded wherein he had stated
that the space is required for remodelling of station at Mumbra and that the stalls were causing a lot of
congestion and inconvenience to commuters. He has also deposed that number of passengers using Mumbra
Rly station has increased considerably over the years and that the stalls cause congestion in the present day
circumstances. He has also explained the drawing before me wherefrom it can be seen that the booking office is
to be made and that the shops are required to be removed to ease congestion in station circulating area.
Railway witness was cross-examined by advocate Gautam. Under cross the witness has admitted that the work of
remodelling is going on, he has stated that new booking office has come up and old booking office is removed.
He has further stated that remodelling work has started about 2 years back and is going on at present and that
the shops are hindrances. The copy of evidence and cross-examination was given to advocate for respondent.
The respondents led evidence through on Shri Swaminath Gupta the same was adopted for all the 11 stalls by
advocate Gautam. Shri Swaminath Gupta stated that the land belongs to Railways but the structure belonged to
individual stall holders. He also stated that the Rly’s have already made the new booking office. He stated that
TMC has demolished some shops at Mumbra and that, he also stated that their stalls were not causing any
congestion as alleged. He has deposed that before he is removed he should be given alternative
SRCETC/TBM

space. The witness was cross-examined by advocte Suresh Kumar on 20-4-2000. The witness has
admitted that commuters population has increased since the last 4 to 5 years. Advocate for applicants
has also cross-examined some other witnesses who were made available for cross by respondents,
but none of the witnesses could refute that there is no remodelling going on and that the commuters
have not increase over the years thereby causing congestion.
After completion of recording of evidence the case was fixed for ARGUMENTS. Thereafter the case was
adjourned on a number of occasions on the request of advocate Shri V.D. GAUTAM. Inspite of several
reminders neither the respondent nor his advocate came forward for tendering Arguments nor did they
file any written arguments.
The case was finally fixed for arguments on 24-8-2000 wherein the respondents and his advocate
remained present. Advocate Shri Suresh Kumar for the petitioner was present and he argued that the
respondent was permitted to occupy a Teh-bazari space at the place marked by the railway
administration upon certain specific terms and conditions contained in writing which were accepted to
by the original licensee respondent , he stated that the respondent has violated those conditions and
constructed pucca structure thereon , The learned advocate stated that the respondent was the
licensee and the space was allotted to him under the Licensing agreement. The respondent had not
given any documents which shows that the respondent is a tenant and not the licensee. He further
argued that the notice were issued in accordance with the provision of the rules and sufficient time was
given to them as required under law. The learned counsel has argued that the procedures followed by
the petitioner to evict the respondent is in accordance with due process of law as contemplated under
the provision of P.P.Act . The learned advocate has also argued that the space is required for
remodeling of the station at Mumbra and for removing congestion from the station circulating area and
in support of contention he relied on site plan. He further argued it is not the case of respondents that
the premises are not public premises. The learned advocate has argued that the respondent be evicted
from the space as the premises are required for public purpose and any delay in evicting the
respondent will escalate the cost of remodelling project and that the congestion in the circulating area
is increasing day by day and that it is becoming very
SRCETC/TBM

difficult for the passengers to move easily in the station circulating area because of the presence
of these stalls.
Advocate for the respondents has argued that the stalls are very old and requested that
alternative site should be offered to the stall holders before evicting them.
I have gone through the facts of the case and have also perused the documents placed before
me by both the parties, I have also gone through the evidence of the witnesses and after
hearing to the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for both sides. I am of the
opinion that the respondents are in unauthorised occupation of the suit premises and they
still continues to occupy the same without any legal right or authority, I am of the view that
the project is being delayed and the same is causing hardship to the commuters of Mumbra
Railway station as the traffic of commuters has increased tremendously over the years. In my
view the requirement of the petitioner is bonafied and in public interest and the project is for
the betterment of the public at large. I am of the view that the remodelling can not be allowed
to be delayed because of a very few stalls. I have also seen the licence agreement and am
convinced that it is not obligatory for the railways to give any alternative site before evicting
the occupants. I am also told that there is no policy for providing any alternative site.
Therefore I pass the following order under section 5 of the Public Premises Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants Act 1971:
ORDER
I hereby order that the respondent ______________________ in case NO 143 of 1998, and/or
any other person occupying the Teh-bazari space No 1 at Mumbra Railway station (East) do
vacate the space within 15 days of the publication hereof.
In the event of refusal/failure to vacate the premises peacefully the party specified herein above
or any person found to be in occupation of the space shall be removed therefrom by the use
of such force as may be necessary.
Dated: This _____ day of June 2001.
P.K. MUDLIAR.
ESTATE OFFICER.
SRCETC/TBM