JUDGMENT
S.K. Gupta, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refrain from evicting the petitioner from Government Quarter No. 539-W, located at Top Sherkhanian, Jammu. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, in brief, is that he is a Government employee and migrated from Kashmir Valley in 1990. The petitioner is stated to have shared the Government accommodation allotted to his brother-in-law. That after the premises was evicted by his brother-in-law, the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the premises exclusively. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are now out to evict the petitioner from the said premises, without adopting due course of law.
2. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents in their demurrer on variety of grounds. It is stated that the Government accommodation was allotted to one Romesh Kumar Koul, Accountant in Technical Education Department, vide Order No. 212-Est of 2001 dated 23-10-2001. Romesh Kumar Koul, however, sublet the Quarter to the petitioner in violation of the rules and regulations governing the allotment, and without permission/authority from the Estate Department. It is further stated that the petitioner has no right to continue in possession of the said Quarter without proper allotment, and proceedings under Section 14 of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988, are in the process of being initiated against the petitioner. That no legally enforceable right has accrued to the petitioner for being maintaining the writ petition, being unauthorized occupant of the Government accommodation and a trespasser.
I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, in extenso, and perused the record, meticulously.
3. The admitted position, emerging from the pleadings of the parties and from the record, is that the petitioner is occupying the Government accommodation without proper allotment and permission/authority from the Estate Department. There is no allotment order placed on record issued by the Estate Department in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the said Government Quarter. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was never authorized for occupation of the Government accommodation/public premises by the Competent Authority, i.e., Estate Department. The petitioner himself admitted to have shared the Government accommodation with his brother-in-law, who was, in fact, an allottee of the Government accommodation. It, therefore, transpires that after the allottee left the accommodation, the occupation of the petitioner became unlawful, illegal and in the capacity of no more than a trespasser. Had the petitioner been initially in occupation of the public premises by virtue of any authority and his possession had become valid, the position would have been different, viz, instead a rank trespasser, he would have been an authorized occupant. It must be borne in mind that remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable remedy to a person in respect of the action of the judicial or quasi-judicial authority in violation of the principles of natural justice. This remedy is not available to a trespasser in occupation of the public premises unlawfully and illegally and without any authority from the Estate Department. He is not entitled to any protection, either in law or in equity. 4. The petitioner has not succeeded to carve out a case of violation of his legally enforceable right to maintain the writ petition.
There is no merit in this writ petition and is, accordingly, dismissed with all connected CMPs.
