ORDER
R. Banumathi, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.10.2001 of the District Judge, Uthagamandalam in C.M.A. No. 20 of 1997, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Respondent / Estate Officer.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Revision Petition are as follows: A piece of land measuring 1.94 cents belonging to Cordite Factory, Aruvankadu at Guva Hills in Survey No. 112/6 has been unauthorisedly encroached by one Ponnammal and a building was constructed by the Revision Petitioners. Ponnammal has been informed of the fact of unauthorised occupation and that she should vacate and hand over the said plot of land by demolishing the temporary construction on or before 19.05.1984.
3. The said Ponnammal has filed O.S. No. 576 of 1984 before the District Munsif Court, Coonoor. The said Suit was dismissed by the Court on 04.07.1997. Stating that the said Ponnammal is in unauthorised occupation of the premises and that she has not vacated the encroached defence land and declaring her as an unauthorised occupant of the public premises, by exercising powers conferred under Section 5(1) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971,(for short “the Act”) the Respondent has ordered eviction by an order dated 25.11.1997.
4. As against the order of Eviction passed by the Respondent, the Revision Petitioners filed C.M.A. No. 20 of 1997 before the District Court, Uthagamandalam. Pointing out the dismissal of Civil Suit filed by Ponnammal and that she has failed to prove her contention, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the Appeal, which is impugned in this Revision Petition.
5. The Eviction Order is assailed contending that Statutory Notice as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act was not issued. It was further contended the Impugned Order is vitiated for non-compliance of mandatory provisions under Section 4 of the Act and Appellate Authority has failed to take note of violation of mandatory provisions.
6. Mr. T.S. Rajamohan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the file and contended that mandatory provisions had been complied with. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Eviction Order was passed only after issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 07.05.1984 and 04.07.1989.
7. I have carefully examined the records and the File and considered the submissions of both parties.
8. The land forming part of larger extent of 4.62 acres in S. No. 112/06 was acquired by the Defence Ministry during 1984. The land was under the control of Defence Estate Officer, Madras Circle. Land measuring 1.94 cents was encroached by Ponnammal and she had put up superstructure over the said land. Notice dated 07.05.1984 was issued to the said Ponnammal to vacate and deliver possession. The said Ponnammal filed O.S. No. 39 of 1984 before Vaction Court, Coimbatore for Permanent Injunction not to dispossess her except by due process of law. The said Suit was transferred to District Munsif Court, Coonoor and renumbered as O.S. No. 576 of 1984. The said suit was dismissed on merits on 04.07.1997. Appeal preferred against that Judgment in A.S. No. 48 of 1997 was also dismissed by District Court, Nilgiris. Both in Suit and in Appeal, the said Ponnammal had taken the stand that the Respondent had no authority to initiate proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The said contention was negatived by the Civil Courts holding that land belongs to Defence Ministry and Respondent is empowered to initiate proceedings under the Act.
9. Section 5 of the Act contemplates the following ingredients:
i. Notice under Section 4 of the Act;
ii. Recording of evidence that may be produced in support of the Notice under Section 4 of the Act.
iii. Giving reasonable opportunity to the unauthorised to represent the case.
iv. E.O. must be satisfied that the public premises is unauthorised by occupied.
v. Order of eviction must be supported by reasons.
vi. Order must direct the unauthorised occupier to vacate the premises on such date as may be specified in the order.
vii. Copy of the said order has to be affixed on the outer door in some other conspicuous part of the public premises in question.
When all the above requirements are satisfied, will be deemed that a proper order under Section 5 of the Act has been passed.
10. Main grievance of the Petitioner is non-issuance of mandatory Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Impugned Order refers to Letter No. 64/Estate dated 07.05.1984. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the said letter dated 07.05.1984 is not in Form-A and cannot be construed as Mandatory Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Communication sent on 07.05.1984 was not Form-A, but Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. But, before initiating the eviction proceedings, Show Cause Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued to the said Ponnammal on 04.07.1989 as to why order of eviction should not be passed against her. Ponnammal sent reply on 13.07.1989 to the said Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.1989. As reply was not convincing, Order under Section 5(1) was passed on 10.08.1989. In view of pendency of Civil Suits in O.S. No. 576 of 1984, further proceedings were not initiated. After dismissal of O.S. No. 576 of 1984 on 04.07.1997, again order under Section 5(1) of the Act was passed on 25.11.1997. It is pertinent to note that A.S. No. 48 of 1997 preferred against the Judgment in O.S. No. 576 of 1984 was also dismissed on 26.11.1997.
11. Order Under Section 5(1) of the Act was challenged in C.M.A. No. 20 of 1997. In all proceedings, the said Ponnammal and the Petitioners herein have taken stand that subject matter of land is poromboke and belongs to State Government and does not belong to Cordite Factory. Competent Civil Court has decided the question of Title concluding that the property belongs to Defence Ministry and does not belong to State Government. The Petitioner cannot raise objection as to Title of Defence Ministry and competency of Estate Officer to issue eviction Notice. As noticed earlier, the main contention urged is the proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of mandatory requirement. The Petitioners are not right in contending that no Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued to Ponnammal. From the file, it is seen that Notice under Section 4(1) – Form – A was issued to Ponnammal on 04.07.1989, to which, she had submitted her Reply on 13.07.1989 and the same was considered and Order under Section 5(1) of the Act was passed on 10.08.1989. The order issued on 25.11.1997 is only pursuant to Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act issued on 04.07.1989. Non mention of Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act in eviction order would not vitiate the same. There is no violation of mandatory provisions.
12. The Impugned Order refers to Letter No. 64/Estate dated 07.05.1984. It was contended that the communication dated 07.05.1984 is not in the prescribed Form-A and cannot be construed as Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Letter No. 64/Estate dated 07.05.1984 is only narration of facts which preceded the Impugned Order. Non mention of Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Impugned order does not vitiate. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Appellate Forum has not considered issuance of Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the said Ponnammal had not raised the objection of non-issuance of a Notice in the Civil Proceedings. On the other hand, she has challenged the authority of the Estate Officer, Cordite Factory in initiating proceeding by raising a contention that the land is belonging to State Government. The contention raised by the Petitioner is devoid of merits.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the Impugned Order dated 10.10.2001 of the District Judge, Uthagamandalam in C.M.A. No. 20 of 1997 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.