AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26.2.2003.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
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.
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.
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.
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.