Sarwan Kumar etc. vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—The short question in this and the connected writ petition is: what is the starting point from which limitation commences to run for an appeal u/s 9(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971?

The Petitioners are residents of the Slappar colony in tehsil Sundernagar in the district of Mandi. Notice u/s 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, was issued to the Petitioners to show cause why they should not be treated as unauthorised occupants of public land and, therefore, evicted therefrom. It seems that the Petitioners petitioned the authorities for the regularisation of their occupation. Instead, an order u/s 5(1) of the Act was made by the Estate Officer holding that they were in unauthorised occupation of public premises and he directed them to vacate the land within 30 days of the publication of the order failing which they were liable to be evicted. The Petitioners appealed, and the appeals have been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, who has been constituted by Section 9 of the Act as an Appellate Officer to hear such appeals. The Appellate Officer had dismissed the appeals on the ground that they are barred by time. He has pointed out that having regard to the date of service of the notice of eviction on the Appellants, the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed period of fifteen days mentioned in Section 9 of the Act.

The Petitioners now pray for certiorari against the order dismissing their appeals.

The Appellate Officer has computed the period of limitation for preferring an appeal from the date of personal service of the notice of eviction u/s 5 of the Act. In doing so, in my opinion, he has erred. Section 4 of the Act empowers an Estate Officer to initiate proceedings against a person who in his opinion is in unauthorised occupation of a public premises. He is required to issue a notice in writing calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an-order of eviction should not be made. The notice, by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Act, is served by affixation on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises or in such other manner as may be prescribed. Where the Estate Officer knows or has reason to believe that any person is inoccupation of the public premises, he may also serve a copy of the notice on any person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that personorin such other manner as may be prescribed. After considering the cause shown by the person in pursuance of the notice u/s 4 and after taking into account any evidence produced in support of such cause and after providing reasonable opportunity to such person of being heard, the Estate officer, if satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, is empowered by Section 5(1) of the Act to make an order of eviction. Such order of eviction is required to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. No other mode of publication is prescribed by Section 5 of the Act.

Section 9 of the Act provides for appeals. An appeal lies against an order u/s 5. In respect of an appeal from an order u/s 5, Section 9(2) provides a period of fifteen days "from the date of publication of the order under Sub-section (1) of that section" It is apparent that the starting point of the period of limitation is the date on which the order u/s 5(1) of the Act is published. Now publication implies communication to the general public or to a section thereof but not communication to an individual in his personal capacity, that is to say, in a capacity other than as a member of the public. The word "publication" has been defined in Webster''s Third New International Dictionary to mean "Communication (as of news or information) to the public: public announcement: the act or process of issuing copies (as of a book, photograph, or music score) for general distribution to the public". Where copies are given by way of private communication it cannot be said that there is any publication. Stroud''s Judicial Dictionary1, sets out a number of illustrative cases from which it is clear that publication must necessary imply communication to the general public. Publication may be accomplished in a variety of ways according to the subject matter. While a book or other literary matter is published by being surrendered by its author for public use, its circulation amongst friends gratuitously or to pupils by lectures is not publication, nor is circulation amongst subscribers for their private use. A newspaper or periodical is published whenever and wherever it is offered to the public by the proprietor. A sculpture or bust is published when it is publicly exhibited.

The rules of limitation are technical rules of procedure and it is now settled law that they must be so construed. If the rule prescribes that limitation shall commence from a specified date, it cannot be construed as referring to any other date. Section 9(2) declares that the limitation for filing an appeal u/s 9(1) of the Act shall commence from the date of publication of the order u/s 5(1) of the Act. Publication of such order is effected when the copy of the order is affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. It is not effected when notice of the order is served personally on the individual found to be in unauthorised occupation of the public premises. The Appellate Officer has taken an erroneous view of the law in computing the period of limitation from the date of such service. The appellate order in each case is liable to be quashed.

The writ petitions are allowed, the appellate order of the Appellate Officer passed in each case is quashed. It will be open to the Appellate Officer to take up the appeals afresh and to dispose them of in accordance with law. The Petitioners are entitled to their costs.