AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to order bearing
No.Ned/CP/C3/92/90, dated 20.12.1990 on the file of the second respondent as confirmed by the order and decretal order, dated 10.3.1994
made in C.M.A.No.6/91 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry and to quash the same.
The petitioner was granted lease by the Government an area of 12 x 12 square metres for the purpose of putting up a house for the period of
five years from 1.1.1972 to 31.12.1976. Subsequent to that, the petitioner constructed a house in that plot and he is now residing there. The lease
was not extended thereafter. In the meanwhile, on 24.1.1989, the respondents issued eviction notice to the petitioner. Against that C.M.A.6 of
1991 was filed and that was dismissed and against that, the present writ petition has been filed.
The case of the petitioner is that he was given the land on lease for the specific purpose of constructing a house. Therefore, in accordance with
the lease, he constructed the house and he is residing there continuously and even though the lease period came to an end on 31.12.1976, no
notice was issued subsequent to 1976 till 1989. Therefore, the petitioner was under the impression, his lease being extended on the same
conditions. Further, the petitioner states that since he has put up a house in the land allotted to him and since the purpose for which this land is
required by the Government as revealed in the notice of eviction, is to construct a Kalyana Mandapam, the petitioner was prepared to surrender
his lands to the same extent which are available adjoining to this land. Therefore, instead of cancelling the lease granted to him over this property,
the Government can exchange the lands which are owned by him. Therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed. The counsel also submitted
that though there is no specific clause for extending the lease, since this Court is a Court of Equity, may consider the equitable relief and that the
petitioner may be declared that he is entitled to claim, especially in the circumstances of the case where from 1976 till 1989, there was no order
whatsoever directing the petitioner to vacate the premises.
The counsel appearing for the Government brought to the notice of this Court, The Pondicherry Village and Commune Panchayats Act, 1973,
which came into force on 1.4.1973. Section 246-B of the Act reads as follows:
""unauthorised occupation"", in relation to any panchayat premises, means the occupation by any person of the panchayat premises without
authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the panchayat premises after the authority (whether by
way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any
reason whatsoever.
As per the definition of this Act, from the date on which the Act came into force, any lessee who is in occupation of the leased land is in
unauthorised occupation. Therefore, by operation of law, such persons are only in ""unauthorised occupation"", not a ""tenant holding over."" The
counsel for the respondents submit that the arguments of the petitioner that he is in the nature of the tenant holding over and therefore, cannot be
accepted, in view of the specific definition of ""unauthorised occupation"" found in the Act. This argument of the counsel for the respondent is
acceptable. Inasmuch as the Act has specifically stated that the panchayat premises which have been under occupation of any person even though
originally the possession was legal, but subsequently, on the completion of the lease, such possession becomes unauthorised occupation.
Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he is in the nature of the tenant holding over is not acceptable and therefore, the petitioner is only in the
unauthorised occupation of the land in his possession.
Learned senior counsel Mr. G. Masilamani, submitted that since he has put up a storied building in that site, it will be unreasonable to evict him
and to demolish the building which is not going to serve any purpose nor even that would be in the interest of any one and also the petitioner would
sustain heavy loss. Though this plea of the counsel for the petitioner is appealing, still this court has no authority to grant such a relief. It is only for
the authorities to decide this issue taking into account the purpose for which the land was sought to be recovered and whether the alternate site
offered by him will also satisfy that purpose. Though the petitioner has put up the construction in the site originally leased to him, it is not in
accordance with any sanctioned plan, i.e., the petitioner has not obtained sanctioned plan before putting the construction. Therefore, this Court
cannot even grant the equitable relief of compensation.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be permitted to make an application to the authorities concerned within a period of
30 days from this date, for extension of lease or for assignment of the land. It is for the authorities to consider under the circumstances to consider
whether the surrender of lands adjoining the land in question will serve the purpose. The authorities may take any decision on the merits of the
case. The authorities may decide the issue, either way. With this observation, this writ is dismissed. No costs.
The senior counsel further requested that till the time, the petitioner makes the application, the building may not be demolished. In these
circumstances, there will be a direction to the concerned authorities that the building need not be demolished for a period of eight weeks, till 20th
May, 2001 or till the date, the petitioner makes the application as stated above, whichever is earlier. With this observation, this writ is dismissed.
No costs.