Eviction from public premises requires notice and due process under the Public Premises Act.

The petitioner, Rajendra Prasad Singh, challenged a notice dated 29 July 2026 issued by the South Eastern Railway and pasted on the wall of his residence.

The notice, addressed to “Unknown/Om Prakash Singh,” alleged unauthorized occupation of Railway land at Barigora Gate, LC-138, and directed vacation by 13 August 2026, failing which the Railway Administration threatened to forcibly dismantle the structure.

The petitioner contended that he occupied the premises, that no person named Om Prakash Singh resided there, that the property was not Railway land, and that the notice did not identify the statutory provision under which it was issued.

The Railway submitted that the notice was affixed because the petitioner was found to be in unauthorized occupation.

1. Whether the Railway’s notice, addressed to “Unknown/Om Prakash Singh” and affixed to the petitioner’s residence, was legally sustainable when it did not name the petitioner or specify the statutory provision invoked?

2. Whether the petitioner could be evicted or his structure demolished without following the procedure prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971?

The Court applied the fundamental principle that no person can be evicted from property except by following due process of law.

It further directed that any eviction action by the Railway against the petitioner must be initiated and pursued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, including issuance of a proper notice in the petitioner’s name and compliance with the statutory procedure.

No precedent was cited, and the Court expressly stated that it had not adjudicated the merits of the parties’ competing claims regarding ownership or unauthorized occupation.

The Court found that the impugned notice was not addressed to the petitioner but to “Unknown/Om Prakash Singh,” despite having been affixed to premises where the petitioner resided.

The notice also failed to disclose the legal provision under which eviction and forcible dismantling were threatened.

Since eviction cannot be effected without due process, the Railway could not proceed on the basis of an improperly addressed and legally unspecified notice.

The Court therefore set aside the notice, while leaving the merits of the alleged Railway ownership and unauthorized occupation open, and permitted the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under the 1971 Act.

The notice dated 29 July 2026 was set aside because it was not issued in the petitioner’s name and did not specify the statutory basis for the proposed eviction.

The Railway was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and proceed in accordance with that Act.

The Court clarified that eviction could take place only after compliance with due process, and directed the petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings.