(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Hon'ble Chief Justice.)
This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the
learned single Judge dated 26.2.2003.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The appellant was a licensee of railway land along with other
licensees. Most of the original licensees died and third parties are
illegally occupying the plots in question. In some cases though the original
licensees are occupying the plots for which licenses were given, the period of
licenses has long expired and had not been renewed. Hence such persons are
unauthorised occupants occupying the plots without any right.
4. The learned single Judge in his judgment has hence rightly set
aside the judgment of the learned District Judge, Trichirapalli. We have
carefully perused the judgment of the learned single Judge and fully agree
with the reasoning given, which we are not repeating.
5. The appellant was only a licensee of the plot in question and it
is well settled that a licensee has no right vide section 60 of the Easements
Act. Moreover the period of license expired a long time back and hence the
appellant was clearly an unauthorised occupant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant however argued that the
procedure mentioned in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 should have been followed by the authorities, but it was
not followed. In our opinion, this argument is based on a total
misconception. The object of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 is to forcibly evict unauthorised occupants who are
deliberately remaining in occupation of public premises unauthorisedly. Hence
the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is fulfilling exactly the
same object which the aforesaid Act aims at, namely, to forcibly throw out
unauthorised occupants from public property. Decent people vacate the
premises when the period of lease or license expires. When a person does not
behave in a decent manner, the only way left is to forcibly throw him out. It
is for this purpose that the aforesaid Act was enacted, and the same object
has been achieved by the learned single Judge namely, to throw out an
unauthorised occupant. Hence we see no reason to interfere with the judgment
of the learned single Judge, which is eminently just and fair. The writ
appeal is dismissed. Consequently WAMP No.179 of 2005 is also dismissed.
Index : Yes.
Internet: Yes.
ns.
To
1. The General Manager,
Union of India owning
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai-3.
2. The Principal District Judge,
Trichirapalli.
3. The Estate Officer,
Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Workshop Manager,
Southern Railway, Golden Rock,
Trichirapalli.
ns