Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 10: High Court has held the eviction notices issued by the Development Authority against various shops as misconceived and such an action in wrong direction under law and left it free for the Authority to proceed against them in accordance with law.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar while allowing a batch of petition filed by the shopkeepers challenging therein the eviction notices said the occupation of petitioner-shopkeepers, which was initially permissible, may be declared unauthorized after following the procedure laid down in Sections 4 and 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988.
Justice Kumar said, the eviction notices itself are too vague to be replied to. Neither decision of the Division Bench dated 14.06.2017 nor decision of the Board of Directors of the Development Authority to which a reference has been made in the impugned notice appear to have been supplied to the petitioners.
Court admitted it that the petitioners are in occupation of the superstructure which was raised by the erstwhile owner and later on acquired by the Development Authority and their occupation is long, continuous and uninterrupted.
Court on invoking of Section 6(2) of the Act by the Estate Officer while issuing eviction notice said it is totally misconceived and an action in the wrong direction as the impugned notice(s), even if held to be validly issued under Section 6(2) of the Act, would not stand the scrutiny of law because of its vagueness.
“Unless the material relied upon in the notice is served upon the violator/noticee, it would not be possible for such person to adequately respond to the notice and show cause against the action proposed”, court said.
The impugned notices issued to the petitioners, court said, are rendered bad in the eye of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained. “The respondents are well advised to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, if they propose to evict the petitioners from the public premises”, the court added.
Court with these findings and analysis allowed all these petitions and quashed these notices. Court, however, left it free for the authority to proceed against the petitioners, if required, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel