HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 2114/2024 Pronounced on : 09.05.2025 (i) Junaid Azeem Mattu (Age 36), S/o Kh. Ab. Majeed Mattu, A/P Estate Accommodation, H.O.D-03, Church Lane, Sonawar, Srinagar …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- M/s G. A. Lone & Q. R. Shamas, Advocates. V/s (i) UT of Jammu & Kashmir, through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Estates Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu (ii) District Magistrate (Dy. Commissioner), Srinagar (iii) Director Estates, Government of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu (iv) Dy. Director, Estates (Designated Estates Officer), Kashmir Division, Srinagar (v) Station House Officer, Police Station, Ram Munshi Bagh, Sonwar, Srinagar …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Hakima Aman Ali, Dy. AG with Ms. Rahella Khan, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE JUDGMENT 01. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar/Appellate Authority, and the impugned notices bearing Nos. DDES/Evc/2024/5446 dated 03.09.2024 and DDES/Evc/2024/4878 dated 24.08.2024 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the scheduled premises on or before 11.09.2024, failing which action under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Jammu WP(C) No. 2114/2024 and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was to be initiated. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in occupation of the allotted accommodation, i.e., HOD No. 03, Church Lane, Sonawar, Srinagar. 02. The petitioner submits that he is a politician and a reputed public figure, having previously served as the elected Mayor of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation. The government accommodation i.e., Church Lane, Sonawar, HOD No. 03 was allotted to him in the year 2018 in view of the threat perception as he had been categorized as ‘Z’ security protected person The petitioner is residing in the secured accommodation as provided to other protected persons. 03. The respondent No. 4, i.e., the Designated Estates Officer, Kashmir, issued eviction notices under Sections 4(1) and 5(1) of the Act vide Notice No. DDES/Evc/2024/4878 dated 24.08.2024 and Notice No. DDES/Evc/2024/5446 dated 03.09.2024, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises by or before 11.09.2024. 04. These notices were challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2085/2024. During consideration of the said writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that although a statutory appeal was filed against the aforementioned notices, the appellate authority refused to entertain the same and even declined to record its WP(C) No. 2114/2024 presentation, thereby denying the petitioner a legal remedy. Upon asking of the Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar appeared virtually and submitted that the appeal filed on 05.09.2024 had been entertained and that notices to the parties were issued on 09.09.2024, as he was indisposed for three days. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar to hear both the parties and decide the appeal by 10.09.2024. 05. The appeal was, accordingly, decided by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 10.09.2024. The impugned order dated 10.09.2024 has been assailed in this petition on the ground that the impugned notices were issued in contravention of Section 4 sub Section (1) of the Act. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 failed to provide the statutory period of seven days to the petitioner to produce documents or evidence proving authorization to occupy the premises. The notice dated 24.08.2024 directed eviction by or before 26.08.2024, thereby affording less than two days' time to furnish any such evidence of his legal right to occupy the public premises without calling upon the petitioner to furnish any such evidence. 06. It is further submitted that the impugned notices are violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Act. The respondents have wrongly held the petitioner to be in unauthorized occupation of the public premises when the same was duly allotted to him pursuant to Government Order WP(C) No. 2114/2024 No. 107-Est. of 2018 dated 15.11.2018. The petitioner being a Z-category security protectee and since the accommodation was co-terminus with his security arrangement, he submits that eviction from secured premises would endanger his and his family’s life. 07. The contention of the petitioner is that since the notice under Section 4 sub Section (1) of the Act was illegal, the subsequent notice under Section 5 stands vitiated and deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the relevant facts that the impugned notices were violative of the Scheme of the Act as well as principles of natural justice, while deciding the appeal and rejected the appeal. 08. On 11.09.2024, notice was issued in the present petition, and Mr. Syed Musaib, learned Dy. AG, accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. This Court, vide interim order dated 11.09.2024 granted time to file objections and also stayed the operation of the impugned order and notices. 09. In the objections filed by the respondents, it is submitted that their action is in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in ‘Yaseen Shah vs. State and others’, (OWP No. 1750/2015) and the recent order of Hon’ble Division Bench dated 12.11.2020 in WP(C) PIL No. 24/2020, whereby the official respondents were directed to take steps for eviction of unauthorized occupants from Government accommodations. It is submitted that the accommodation was allotted to the WP(C) No. 2114/2024 petitioner only up to April 2019 during his tenure as Mayor, and he has continued unauthorizedly thereafter despite repeated requests to vacate. 10. Consequently, a notice under Section 4(1) sub Section (1) of the Act was issued directing the petitioner and other occupants to vacate by or before 26.08.2024. Upon failure to comply, a notice under Section 5(1) was issued for eviction by 03.09.2024. The petitioner aggrieved of the notices dated 26.08.2024 and 11.09.2024 filed an appeal against the same which was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2024. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the file. 12. The Estate Officer issued notice under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act 1988 to the petitioner on 24.08.2024, requiring him and the other occupants to vacate by or before 26.08.2024. 13. The contents of the notice are that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of public premises as the same were allotted to him in the capacity of Mayor, Srinagar Municipal Corporation for the period ending April, 2019. The petitioner was no longer holding the post and hence not entitled to Government accommodation and no extension was granted, therefore, he was directed to vacate the premises by 26.08.2024. WP(C) No. 2114/2024 14. The petitioner failed to vacate the premises, therefore, eviction notice under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act was issued on 03.09.2024. The notice stated that despite the lapse of ten days, the petitioner failed to vacate the premises, therefore, all persons were directed to vacate the premises, failing which, action under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act would be invoked against him along with others. 15. The petitioner’s contention is that the respondents failed to comply with mandate of statutory provisions of Section 4 as such, the notices are vitiated. To appreciate the same, it is necessary to reproduce Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, which read as under:- “4. Issue of notice to produce documents in proof of authorization of occupation –– (1) If the Estates Officer has reasons to believe that any person is in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that he should be evicted, the Estates Officer shall call upon such person by a notice in writing to produce any documentary or other evidence within a period of seven days from the date of issuance of such notice to prove that he had been duly authorized by the Competent Authority to occupy such public premises failing which the person/persons shall be evicted after expiry date. (2) When a person is served with a notice under sub-section (1), the burden of proving that he has been duly authorized to occupy public premises by the authority competent to do so shall be upon such person. (3) The notice shall be served upon such occupant by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises and also be published in at least two leading newspapers or in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly served to all persons concerned. (4) Where the Estates Officer knows or has reasons to believe that more than one person is in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person in the manner as aforesaid.]” 5. Eviction of unauthorized occupants - (1) If after a person who has been served with a notice to produce proof or evidence under section 4 WP(C) No. 2114/2024 fails to produce any such proof or evidence within the stipulated period, or if after considering the proof or evidence, if any, produced by him, the Estates Officer is satisfied that the public premises is in unauthorized occupation, the Estates Officer shall make an order of eviction for reasons to be recorded therein directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by such person or all such persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises.] (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction on or before the date specified in the said order or within seven days of the date of its publication under sub-section (1), whichever is later, the estate officer or any other officer duly authorized by the estate officer in this behalf may after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that person from and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. 16. The respondent No. 4 had invoked Section 4 (sub section 1) and Section 5 (sub section 1) for eviction of the unauthorized person. Section 4 sub Section (1) of the Act provides that if the Estate Officer is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorized occupation of the public premises, then he should be evicted, he shall issue notice in prescribed writing in the prescribed manner asking the person to show cause within seven days as to why order of eviction should not be made. The notice shall indicate the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made and it should be a notice of minimum seven days. The notice shall also be directed to appear along with the evidence which he intends to produce in support of his cause shown. Thereafter, the Estate Officer in terms of Section 5 of the Act, after conducting the cause shown and evidence produced, shall make the order of WP(C) No. 2114/2024 eviction for reasons to be recorded. It is only after the person fails to provide evidence within seven days that notice under Section 5 of the Act. 17. This order passed under Section 5 of the Act is appealable under Section 12 of the Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10.09.2024. The notice under Section 4 sub Section (1) of the Act mandates that the petitioner must given necessary evidence within seven days. The respondents only gave two days’ time to vacate the scheduled premises which is against the mandate of Section 4(1) of the Act, thus, rendering the impugned notice under Sub Section 1 of Section 4 as unsustainable. 18. As per the provision, the petitioner was to be provided an opportunity of producing documents and other evidence within a period of seven days from the date of issuance of the notice. The respondents had denied the same to him by giving only two days’ time. 19. In the instant case, the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself by producing evidence within the prescribed period of seven days, which resulted in denial of a fair opportunity to defend himself. 20. It is well settled that if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner only. If it is not done in that manner, it has no existence in the eyes of law as held in M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. WP(C) No. 2114/2024 Commissioner of Customs (Preventive Jamnagar) i.e., Appeal No. 7439-7440 of 2004 decided on 14.05.2015. 21. Similarly in State of West Bengal & ors. Vs. Vishnunarayan and Associates (P) Ltd., reported as (2002) 4 SCC 134, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the possession of property can be resumed by the State Government only in the manner known to or recognized by law and it cannot resume possession otherwise in due course of law. 22. The appellate Authority failed to consider the fact that the respondents had not followed the mandate of sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, thereby denying a reasonable opportunity of hearing which has rendered the entire process of eviction unsustainable in law. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 and notice dated 24.08.2024 are held to be unsustainable in law and are, accordingly, set aside. (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Jammu: 09.05.2025 Michal Sharma/PS Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No