RAVI S.DHAVAN - (1.) BY two seperate petitions, the petitioners in each of them, Rameshwar Prasad and Parmanand Kandpal, both of Ramkhet, district Almora, impugn the proceedings initiated by the Union of India under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971.
(2.) THE contention of both the petitioners in the writ petition are common. THEy accept that they are licensees of a very small area in Ranikhet, within the Cantonment. Rameshwar Prasad, on the area which had been licensed to him, had a kiosk, from which he carried out the trade of of selling fruits and vegetables. Parmanand Kandpal also had a kiosk from which he sold cigarettes and pan. Both the kiosks were, it is contended, temporary wooden structures near the bus stand of Kumaun Motor Union Limited (K. M.U.L.) at Sadar Bazar. THEre is no issue on facts that both the petitioners were licensees upon a licence granted by the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet, which licence was issued under section 210 of the Cantonment Board Act. 1924. It is acknowledged in the writ petition that by letter of 13 August, 1986, the petitioners received a communication from the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Ranikhet that where as the licence has been granted by the Cantonment Board, on a wrong impression that the land belonged to the Board, it had later been discovered that the land is category, A-1 and directly controlled and managed by the military authorities. This communication to the petitioners was only a caution to them that the life of their licence was limited. It required the petitioners to remove the occupation from the land which they occupied, failing which the Competent Authority of the Board would take necessary action. The petitioners replied to this notice by their letter of 20 August, 1986 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). In reply, they acknowledged that the licence granted to them and their occupation was in pursuance of the licence granted by the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. In the letter, they requested that no proceedings for their eviction ought to be initiated. It appears that the matters rested for about five years when, after 19815, no licences having been granted to Che petitioners, they received a letter on behalf of the Station Headquarters, Ranikhet, dated 12 October, 1991 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) intimating that their occupation of the land was illegal. They were given a warning; that they must remove their occupation, failing which the proceedings for their eviction would be initiated. The petitioners replied to the letter on behalf of the Station Headquarters, Ranikhet and challenged the Station Headquarters that if they take any action, it would be contested.
(3.) FURTHER, the petitioners received a notice on 22 September, 1992 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) from the Station Headquaeters, Ranikhet, under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A, of the aforesaid Act, requiring them to vacate the defence land within fifteen days, failing which unauthorised occupation would be removed. The petitioners replied to this notice on 29 September, 1992 (Annexure- 12 to the writ petition). In their reply, they submitted that they were not trespassers but licensees. The Estate Officer granted the petitioner a personal interview on the proceedings. The Estate Officer recorded that the licences having been cancelled, the petitioners continued as unauthorised occupants of government land, and thus, ordered, under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971, that all the persons who may occupy the premises or any part of it should, vacate the occupation within fifteen days of the order, failing which they would be evicted by using such force as may be necessary. The order was issued on 12 October, 1992 under the directions of an Officer c? the rank of a Brigadier, Station Headquarters, Ranikhet, otherwise the Estate Officer under the Act, aforesaid.;