Colonel M.H. Chowdhury vs Estate Officer and Station Commander

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.—Challenging the legality and validity of the Order dated 01.06.2012 in connection with P.P.Appeal No.14 of 2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, affirming the order of Brigadier, Estate Officer and Station Commander, Kolkata dated 13th August, 2009 under Sub-Section (2) and (2A) of Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

According to the petitioner, he was provided with a ''Separated Family Accommodation'' bearing Quarter No. 15/180 Turf View, Kolkata-700 022, when he was posted to a field area and thereafter he was posted at Panagarh Station Headquarter. After getting a posting at another place he has prayed for retention of the said ''Separated Family Accommodation Quarter'' on children''s education ground under a letter dated 19th July, 2007, till April 2008 and permission was granted by the Competent Authority. Thereafter, he had wanted to file another application on the self-same ground mentioning that he had omitted to mention his daughter''s academic year i.e. February 2009, so he wanted to extend the said permission up to February 2009. By a letter dated 12th July, 2008, the administrative commandant, acting for the station commander, had allowed him to retain the quarter till 31st August, 2008 without considering the reasons raised by the present petitioner. The petitioner retired from his service with effect from 28th February, 2009 and thereafter he was re-employed with effect from 20th March, 2009. He was given an accommodation where he was posted later. After re-employment in Kalimpong Headquarter, 27 Mountain Division, in March 2009, the administrative commandant contacted the present petitioner over phone and asked him to vacate the premises situated at Turf View immediately and the petitioner requested him not to take such draconian step because his young daughter''s marriage was fixed on April 26, 2009 which was not entertained. Time to time communications were made by the petitioner with the authority concerned, but the Estate Officer was not convinced and so the Estate Officer issued a show cause notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. He has given reply to the said show cause. The Estate Officer after considering his submission has passed impugned order holding that the present petitioner was not unauthorized occupant from 01.09.2008 to 02.05.2009 and in exercise of power conferred on him under the said act, he has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80 per square meter as damages on account of his unauthorized occupancy from 01.09.2008 to 02.05.2009.

At the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that vide letter bearing Case No. 102/5/2/ACA/Q2 dated 26th May, 2009 the said Estate Officer held that the present petitioner was no more an unauthorized occupant of the public premises, yet he has charged the damages.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that the said letter does not help the present petitioner on the contrary it would help the opposite party. He clarified the implication of the said letter that the petitioner has vacated the quarter on 22.05.2009 and so further order for eviction was not necessary. So after 22nd May, 2009, he was not in unauthorized occupation of the public premises but for every purposes he was in unauthorized occupation before 22nd May, 2009. His right to retain the quarter was extinguished on and from 31.08.2008 and for that reason the Estate Officer has charged Rs.80 per square meter from 01.09.2008 to 02.05.2009.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the impugned judgment passed in P.P.Appeal No. 14 of 2009 suffers from material irregularity as the Estate Officer had no right to impose damages and learned First Appellate Court also failed to construe the true meaning of ''unauthorized occupancy''.

After going through the impugned order, I find that the learned Court below had considered unauthorized occupancy in its proper perspectives and he has also given sound logic in the impugned judgment. Admittedly, after 31st August, 2008, there was no extension of his occupancy. His request was turned down by the Estate Officer.

Therefore, he was supposed to vacate the said premises within the stipulated period but that was not done. So in my considered view, there is no illegality on the part of the Estate Officer. Learned First Appellate Court also has come to the same conclusion that the Estate Officer has the right to pass the order to pay damages which is recoverable from the present petitioner.

In the result, there is no merit in this revisional application and accordingly it is dismissed. The present petitioner is directed to pay the damages within a month from the date of this order, failing which the opposite party Estate Officer is at liberty to recover it in accordance with law.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below for his information and taking necessary action in accordance with law.

Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.