Govt turns encroacher: Top court quashes eviction order

It's literally 'sarkar raj' in Pune as the Government of India, which got a parcel on lease in 1929 is now refusing to vacate, and has instead attempted to villainise the original owner and declared him an encroacher on his own land.

However, following a ruling from the Supreme Court, the owner of the land Kaikhosrou Kavasji Framji heaved a sigh of relief after the July 31, 2001 eviction notice issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act was quashed. A bench of Justices AM Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari felt that a dispute of ownership needs to be decided in a civil suit and the shortcut used by the Government to conduct a summary proceeding to dispossess the original owners is not correct.

The court protected the owners against dispossession, but allowed the civil suit between the Union Government and the Framji family to continue.

The property in question — Bungalow No. 17 under Survey no. 417 — is at Dr Coyaji Road in Pune and Kaihosrou Sorabji Framji, grandfather of the present owner, had leased out the 22,168 sqft plot to the government on October 10, 1929.

Under the lease agreement signed for five years, the government paid a rent of Rs 110, but in 1943, Kavasji K Framji, the present owner's father, challenged the order and in March 1946 got the property de-requisitioned.

However, in January 1971, the government made known its intentions to take over the land when it issued a notice to 'resume' the property claiming that the land was leased under an old grant (issued before Independence) and all rights on the land will resume with the Union.

Kavasji Framji then approached the Bombay High Court in 1983 for restoration of possession, which was granted in 1985. While this action was pending, the Centre resorted to a quick-fix solution by conducting a summary proceeding under the PP Act.

LAND GRAB ATTEMPT

• Following the HC ruling, the union ordered their eviction. It was this action against which the present owner moved the Bombay HC, and later, top court. 
   
• In its order, SC noted, “Facts set out and the documents filed, in no uncertain terms, establish that there exists a bonafide dispute as to who is the owner of the suit property.”