.C.) 650 , AIR2013 SC 2507 , 2013 (4 )AJR132 , 2013 5 AWC5291 SC , 2013 (5 )BomCR537 , 2014 (1 )CDR178 (SC ), 2013 (4 )CHN163 , 117 (2014 )CLT736 , 2013 (4 )CTC273 , 2013 INSC 440 , 2013 (3 )J.L.J.R.273 , JT2013 (10 )SC 348 , 2013 (5 )KarLJ177 , 2014 (I )OLR149 , 2014 (I )OLR(SC )149 , 2013 (3 )PLJR380 , 2013 (4 )RCR(Civil)212 , 2013 (2 )RCR(Rent)344 , 2013 (8 )SCALE88 , (2013 )12 SCC631 , [2013 ]17 SCR1 , ,MANU/SC/0667/2013P. Sathasivam#Ranjan Gogoi#242SC3020Judgment/OrderAD#AIR#AJR#AWC#BomCR#CDR#CHN#CLT#CTC#INSC#JLJR#JT#KarLJ#MANU#OLR#OLR#PLJR#RCR (Civil)#RCR (Rent)#SCALE#SCC#SCRP. Sathasivam,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2013-7-865315,16287,65317,65318,65304,18450,65307,65308,65313,65316,65321 -->

MANU/SC/0667/2013

True Court CopyTM EnglishAWC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4064 of 2004

Decided On: 05.07.2013

Appellants: S.D. Bandi Vs. Respondent: Divisional Traffic Officer, KSRTC and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. The instant case relates to the occupation of government accommodation by members of all the three branches of the State, viz., the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary beyond the period for which the same were allotted. The occupation of such government houses/quarters beyond the period prescribed causes difficulty in accommodating other persons waiting for allotment and, therefore, the Government is at a loss on the one hand in not being able to accommodate those persons who are in need and on the other is unable to effectively deal with the persons who continue to occupy unauthorisedly beyond the period prescribed.

2. Despite the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short 'the Act'), it is seen that it has not been effective enough in dealing with the eviction inasmuch as the competent Authority, i.e., Estate Officer has to first initiate proceedings and pass orders after hearing the parties and thereafter, one statutory appeal lies to the District Judge under Section 9 of the Act. After disposal of the appeal, people resort to writ proceedings thereby enjoying the scarce government accommodation. There are cases where the occupants are so affluent that they are willing to pay the penal/market rent and continue to occupy government quarters especially in metropolitan cities where such government quarters are a luxury situated in several acres of land within the heart of the city.

3. Before proceeding further, it is useful to find out the circumstances and basis on which the matter was agitated.

One Shri S.D. Bandi filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.03.2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 324 of 2002 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the Respondents herein granted time to the Appellant herein to vacate the government quarter by 30.04.2004. The Appellant was working as a Driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the Corporation"), Mysore Division at Mysore. By order dated 31.05.1992, he was transferred to the Mangalore Division and for joining the place of duty, he was relieved from the duty of Mysore Division on 12.06.1997. Challenging the order of transfer........