Eviction notices under the Public Premises Act must strictly comply with Rule 4 service requirements.

The petitioners, a brother and sister, claimed ownership of land covered by Dag No. 233 under K.P. Patta No. 33, measuring approximately 1 Katha 5 Lechas, over which they had constructed an RCC building assessed by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation.

The Estate Officer, NF Railway, initiated Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/2025 against Petitioner No. 1, alleging unauthorized occupation of Railway Plot No. 139 (CAT-1) at KM 7/2-1 between Kamakhya and Guwahati, and passed an ex parte eviction order dated 31.07.2025 directing him to vacate approximately 84 square metres within fifteen days.

The petitioners denied receiving the notices issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

Petitioner No. 2 was not impleaded before the Estate Officer and had received no notice, despite claiming to be a joint owner.

Petitioner No. 1 challenged the eviction order under Section 9 of the Act before the District Judge, Kamrup (M), in Misc. Appeal No. 14/2025. The appeal was dismissed on 07.04.2026, principally on the reasoning that the eviction order had been received at the same address at which the statutory notices had allegedly been served.

The petitioners thereafter invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the District Judge was justified in upholding the ex parte eviction order on the assumption that the notices under Section 4 of the Act had been duly served on Petitioner No. 1.

Whether the notices under Section 4 were served in accordance with Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1971, and whether Petitioner No. 2 was entitled to notice before eviction proceedings affecting the jointly claimed property.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court may intervene where a subordinate court or tribunal acts in gross disregard of jurisdiction, statutory requirements, or principles of natural justice, although the power is supervisory and must be exercised sparingly.

Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 requires an eviction notice to be issued to an alleged unauthorized occupant before an eviction order is passed, while Section 9 provides the statutory appellate remedy.

Rule 4 of the 1971 Rules prescribes the mandatory manner of service: delivery or tender to the intended person or an adult family member, or service by registered post acknowledgment due at the person’s usual or last-known residence or business; where such service is not possible, the Rule prescribes affixation and requires a report recording the circumstances of service.

Compliance with the prescribed mode of service is essential to protect the person’s right to be heard and to satisfy natural justice.

The Court also considered the authorities cited by the parties concerning the limited scope of Article 227 and the requirement of jurisdictional or procedural error warranting supervisory intervention.

The Court found that the records contained only initials against the alleged dates of service and no process-server’s report demonstrating that the notices had been delivered, tendered, sent by registered post acknowledgment due, or affixed in accordance with Rule 4.

The address mentioned in the notices was the Railway plot allegedly encroached upon, rather than Petitioner No. 1’s ordinary residence or usual place of business, contrary to the express requirement of Rule 4.

The District Judge therefore erred in inferring due service merely because the subsequent eviction order was received at the same address; receipt of the order could not substitute compliance with the statutory procedure for service of the prior Section 4 notice.

Since the eviction order was passed ex parte without reliable proof of statutory service, the petitioners were denied a meaningful opportunity to contest the Railway’s claim and assert their alleged title, resulting in a violation of natural justice.

The Court further held that Petitioner No. 2, claiming joint ownership of the building and land affected by the proposed eviction, was also entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing.

It set aside both the District Judge’s judgment dated 07.04.2026 in Misc. Appeal No. 14/2025 and the Estate Officer’s ex parte eviction order dated 31.07.2025.

Eviction Case No. EO/MLG/2025 was remanded to the Estate Officer, NF Railway, Maligaon, for fresh consideration after ensuring due service of notice on both petitioners in accordance with Rule 4 of the 1971 Rules and law.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs.