-1- 2025:CGHC:13470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 578 of 2021 1 - Smt. C. Venkatamma W/o Venkatayaya, Aged About 80 Years R/o Quarter No. 2a, Street 18, Sector-6, Bhilainagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. V. Prabharao, D/o Venkatayya, Aged About 56 Years R/o Quarter No. 2a, Street 18, Sector-6, Bhilainagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Steel Authority of India Limited Through - Deputy General Manager (Town Services), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.03.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this writ petition against the order dated 17.08.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 28/2019 by the District Judge, District Durg, wherein and whereby the order passed by the Estate Officer dated Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 06.07.2019 has been affirmed. 2) Brief facts of the present case are that in 2001-02, the respondent authority floated a scheme for the grant of a lease of residential quarters to its employees. On 18.03.2002 the petitioners entered into a 30-year lease agreement for Quarter No. 02A, Street 18, Sector-06, Bhilainagar. Years later, the respondent initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, before the Estate Officer. However, only petitioner No. 1 was issued a notice, and the case was decided without making petitioner No. 2 a party, despite the fact that a lease was granted in the names of both petitioners. On 06.07.2019, the Estate Officer passed the order of eviction. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2021; thus, they have preferred this petition challenging the said order. 3) Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that no notice was issued to petitioner No.2 and proceedings were never drawn against petitioner No.2. He would further submit that the Estate officer passed the order against petitioner No.1 alone. He would also submit that no notice was issued to the petitioners against the illegal construction; the order impugned has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the order impugned; thus, he prays that the order impugned may be set-aside. 4) On the other hand, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel appearing for the -3- respondent would submit that a lease of 2200 sq ft. was granted in favour of petitioner No.1 and the name of petitioner No.2 was included as the co- applicant according to the provisions of clause 5.5 of Sales Scheme to lease out a house to employee. He would further submit that without obtaining permission from the respondent authority, petitioner No.1 raised the construction over 2200 sq. ft. encroached land and constructed a hostel on a sewerage line. He would also submit that the residents made a complaint about water logging and thereafter, notices were issued to petitioner No. 1 for removal of illegal encroachment. He would argue that a survey was done and a notice was issued to petitioner No.1 to remove the illegal construction. He would further argue that petitioner No.1 never appeared in the witness box and also failed to cross examine the respondent witnesses and there is a concurrent finding recorded by the two authorities, and the fine amount has not been deposited; thus, he would pray that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 6) In the present case, the Estate Officer while passing the order dated 06.07.2019 in Case No. 76/2016 held that petitioner No.1 is an unauthorised occupant of the suit premises i.e. Quarter No. 02A, Street 18, Sector 06, Bhilai and the encroached land ad-measuring 2446.50 sq.ft., and passed the order of eviction according to provisions of the Act, 1971. The authority further observed that -4- petitioner No.1 is liable to pay arrears of dues amounting to Rs.39,883/- for the period from March 2013 to January 2016 and damages to the tune of Rs.63,358/- for the period from 03.02.2016 to 30.04.2016. Petitioner No. 1 was also held liable to pay future damages @ 1% of lease premium @ Rs.2675/- per month and 1% of CG Government Land Rate for the encroached land @ Rs.29357/- per month (revisable), yearly ground rent and service charge including other charges as per the assessment. 7) Against the eviction order dated 06.07.2019, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, the same was dismissed and the order passed by the Eviction Officer dated 06.07.2019 was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 17.08.2021 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 28/2019. 8) Clause 5.5 of the modified clauses of "Sale Scheme for Leasing of House to Employees-2001", Phase-3, reads as under:- “Co-applicant: The scheme has limited provision for inclusion of a co-applicant who is the spouse /son/daughter of the employee/ex-employee/ legal heir of the deceased employee, in the application form/offer letter/allotment order, on production of documentary evidence. However, the lease agreement shall be executed in the name of first named applicant.” 9) From a bare reading of the above clause, it is clear that petitioner No. 2 was merely a proforma co-applicant and was not an allottee of the house. 10) Taking into consideration the fact that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned two courts below; under Clause 5.5 of the Sales Scheme (2001, -5- Phase-3), only the first applicant was allotted the house, and petitioner No.2 was merely a proforma co-applicant with no independent right over the property, no separate notice was required to be served on petitioner No. 2; the Estate Officer provided proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner No. 1 before passing the eviction order; petitioner No.1 constructed a hostel over 2200 sq. ft. over encroached land without obtaining prior approval from the respondent authority; complaints were received from residents regarding water-logging caused due to the illegal construction. Further, a survey was conducted and notices were issued to petitioner No.1 for the removal of the encroachment; however, petitioner No.1 failed to appear in the witness box and did not cross-examine the respondent’s witnesses. 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM