Eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises cannot be stalled by pending RTI applications for ownership documents.

The petitioner, West Guwahati Commerce College, challenged an order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the District Judge, Kamrup (M) in Misc Appeal No. 10/2017

The respondent (Railways) initiated eviction proceedings in 2010 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ("the Act"), leading to a show-cause notice in 2017 and a final eviction order on 15.02.2018

The petitioner appealed this order under Section 9 of the Act, but the appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, prompting the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Railways contended the land belonged to them as per official maps and land records (chitha), while the petitioner claimed relevant ownership documents were pending via RTI

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy against an order passed by a District Judge acting as an Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Act

2. Whether the District Judge’s order, upholding the eviction of the petitioner, suffered from legal errors or relied on surmises and conjectures

Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, which provides for appeals against eviction orders

The Supreme Court precedent Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nandini J. Shah (2018), which established that a District Judge acting under Section 9 acts as a "Court," rendering their orders challengeable under Article 227 rather than Article 226

The principles of certiorari from Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023), holding that a writ court does not act as an appellate body and should only interfere in cases of jurisdictional error or patent illegality

The Court first addressed the procedural objection, noting that while the challenge should traditionally proceed under Article 227 per Nandini J. Shah, it would adjudicate on merits since the petition was already pending

On the merits, the Court found the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of title or lawful possession, despite the eviction process having lasted 16 years

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding pending RTI applications, reasoning that a party claiming ownership must possess its own title documents and cannot rely on the lack of information from the State to stay eviction

Conversely, the Railways provided chitha and maps prima facie establishing ownership

The Court observed that the petitioner was attempting to defeat the Act’s objective of "speedy machinery for eviction" through protracted litigation

The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim stay on eviction was vacated

The Court answered that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant and the Railways had followed due process under the Act