Administrative classification of land clusters determines territorial jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under the PP Act.

The appellants challenged an eviction order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the same Act

The appellants moved a writ petition before the Learned Single Judge primarily contesting the territorial jurisdiction of the Estate Officer

The appellants contended that since their land is physically located in Gandhidham, it should not fall under the "Kandla land cluster" jurisdiction

The Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, prompting this Letters Patent Appeal

Whether the Estate Officer appointed for the "Kandla land cluster" had the territorial jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings against premises physically located in Gandhidham

Whether the administrative categorization of land clusters by the Port Authority overrides geographical location for the purpose of Determining an Estate Officer's jurisdiction under the Act, 1971

The court applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971, specifically regarding the appointment and powers of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority under Section 9

It relied on Notification No. S.O. 1536(E) dated 14.06.2013, which empowers Estate Officers to adjudicate proceedings based on designated land clusters (Kandla vs. Gandhidham)

Furthermore, the court referred to the Tariff Authority for Major Ports order dated 25.03.2011, which categorizes lands (specifically F-2 lands) for administrative and regulatory purposes

The Court observed that the Deendayal Port Authority maintains a distinct administrative setup where lands are demarcated into clusters (Kandla and Gandhidham Township) regardless of their physical or geographical location

Evidence from the Superintending Engineer confirmed that the subject plots, while physically in Gandhidham, were categorized as "F-2" lands falling under the "Kandla land cluster" because they are situated east of the National Highway and west of the railway siding

The Court reasoned that the allocation of jurisdiction to an Estate Officer is a matter of administrative convenience and is determined by the specific cluster assigned via notification (Notification No. S.O. 1536(E)) rather than strict geographical boundaries

Consequently, since the lands were officially demarcated within the Kandla cluster, the Estate Officer for Kandla held valid jurisdiction

The Court clarified that territorial jurisdiction under the Act, 1971, is governed by administrative categorization and official notifications rather than physical location

No order as to costs was made, and the connected civil application for stay was disposed of