Derivative claims through a spouse without personal title do not confer locus standi in statutory eviction proceedings.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Chhindwara, which dismissed his appeal against an eviction order issued by the Estate Officer, Western Coalfields Limited (WCL).

The petitioner claimed to occupy a Kaccha house built on government land (Khasra No. 144) for over 20 years.

While the petitioner occupied the premises, he asserted that his wife, Smt. Shamim Bano, was the registered possessor in municipal records and had been paying taxes since 2013.

In 2019, the wife applied for a lease, which remained pending.

Despite this, the Estate Officer initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, against the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that the land was not "public premises" as WCL lacked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for that specific land and that the proceedings were void for failing to serve notice to his wife.

1. Whether the subject land qualifies as "public premises" under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1971.

2. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to maintain the writ petition when the alleged rights in the property belong to his wife.

3. Whether the pendency of a lease application or orders in analogous cases creates a legal barrier to eviction.

The court primarily applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

Section 2(e) defines "public premises" to include property belonging to or held by government companies where the Central Government holds at least 51% share capital.

Section 2(g) defines "unauthorised occupation" as occupation without authority or after authority has expired.

Sections 4 and 5 prescribe the mandatory procedure for notice and eviction.

The court also applied the principles of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that interference is limited to jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice.

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine of locus standi, requiring a petitioner to demonstrate a personal legal injury.

The court found that WCL, as a subsidiary of Coal India Limited (a Government of India undertaking), falls under the definition of a government company whose premises are "public premises" under Section 2(e)(iii)(c).

Although the petitioner claimed WCL had no MoU for the land, the official record of rights confirmed the land belonged to the State Government and was in WCL’s possession; the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to the contrary.

On the issue of locus standi, the court noted that the petitioner admitted all municipal registrations and tax receipts were in his wife’s name, meaning he held no independent legal right to the property and thus suffered no personal legal injury.

The court rejected the natural justice argument, noting that both the petitioner and his wife were given opportunities to lead evidence before the Estate Officer but failed to do so.

Regarding the pending lease application, the court held that such a filing constitutes an admission by the applicant that they currently lack a legal right to the premises.

Finally, the court dismissed the plea for parity with other remanded cases, stating that each case must be decided on its own specific facts.

The court ruled that the land constitutes "public premises" and the petitioner failed to establish any personal legal right to occupy it.

The court clarified that the petitioner's wife, Smt. Shamim Bano, remains at liberty to pursue any independent legal remedies available to her regarding her own claims or the pending lease application.

No costs were awarded.