Page 1

       REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4064 OF 2004

S.D. Bandi                    .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Divisional Traffic Officer, KSRTC & Ors.       .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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  

1

Page 2

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.  

2

Page 3

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, the appellant herein filed Reference No.21  

of 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore.  At the same  

time, he did join the place of posting at Mangalore but did  

not  vacate  the  quarter.   On  19.07.1999,  the  competent  

officer  under  the  Karnataka  Public  Premises  (Eviction  of  

Unauthorised  Occupants)  Act,  1974  passed  an  order  of  

eviction against the appellant in KPP No.3 of 1998.  Against  

the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the  

3

Page 4

District Judge, which was dismissed and the order of eviction  

was confirmed.  Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a  

writ petition being W.P. No. 41762 of 2001 before the High  

Court of Karnataka which was allowed on 10.12.2001.  In the  

meantime, on 03.07.2000, the Industrial Tribunal set aside  

the  order  of  transfer  and  ordered  the  appellant  to  be  

restored to his original place of work at Mysore.  Against the  

said order, the Corporation filed a petition being Writ Petition  

No. 3249 of 2001 in which rule nisi was issued and the award  

of  the  Industrial  Tribunal  was  stayed.   Thereafter,  the  

Corporation  preferred  Writ  Appeal  being  No.  324  of  2002  

against  the  order  dated  10.12.2001 in  W.P.  No.  41762  of  

2001  which  was  allowed  by  impugned  order  dated  

25.03.2004 and the  appellant  herein  was also  directed  to  

vacate  the  quarter  by  30.04.2004.   Challenging  the  said  

order,  the  present  appeal  has  been  preferred  before  this  

Court by way of special leave.  

4) By order dated 13.07.2004, after hearing all the parties,  

this Court dismissed the appeal and directed the competent  

4

Page 5

officer of the Corporation, Mysore Division to at once evict  

the appellant from the quarter.

5) Pursuant to the said order, this Court, taking note of the  

fact that in government quarters, unauthorisedly, people are  

continuing for years together to the detriment of the persons  

who are entitled to occupy the same and also that the same  

is  the  position  in  most  of  the  State  capitals  and  Head  

quarters of the Union Territories, issued notices to the Union  

of  India,  all  the  States  and  the  Union  Territories  with  a  

direction to furnish the list of such unauthorized occupants of  

government quarters in the State capitals and Head quarters  

of Union Territories belonging to all  the three limbs of the  

State, viz., the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.  

This Court further directed to furnish all the details including  

names  of  such  persons,  details  of  quarters,  period  of  

unauthorized  occupancy,  steps  taken  for  vacation  and  its  

result etc., and also that in case no steps have been taken,  

reasons for such inaction.   

6) Pursuant to the above directions, the Union of India, all  

the States and Union Territories were represented by their  

5

Page 6

counsel.   In  order  to  eliminate  the  problem  and  frame  

workable  guidelines  in  addition  to  the  existing  statutory  

provisions,  this  Court  appointed  Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  learned  

senior counsel and Ms. Anjani Aiyyagari, learned counsel as  

amicus curiae to assist the Court.   

7) Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  learned  amicus  curiae,  after  

highlighting various aspects, particularly, the persons in all  

the  three  wings  occupying  official  

premises/quarters/bungalows  even  after  expiry  of  their  

term/period  submitted  that  in  addition  to  the  statutory  

provisions,  this  Court  has  to  frame  certain  workable  

guidelines.  He took us through various provisions of the Act,  

Fundamental Rules (FRs) applicable to the persons working  

under Central Government, various State enactments similar  

to the Central Act, some of the provisions of the Indian Penal  

Code,  1860  (in  short  “the  IPC”)  and  earlier  decisions,  

particularly,  Shiv  Sagar  Tiwari vs.  Union of  India and  

others (1997)  1  SCC  444  which  dealt  with  the  similar  

problem confining to National Capital Territory of Delhi.  

6

Page 7

8) We  propose  to  deal  with  all  these  aspects  in  detail  

hereinafter.   

9) Pursuant to the notice issued by this  Court,  Union of  

India  and  some  of  the  States  submitted  their  views  and  

suggestions and others though represented by counsel, did  

not convey their views by filing affidavit or report which we  

are  going  to  discuss  after  quoting  the  report  of  learned  

amicus curiae.     

10) Learned  amicus  curiae in  his  report  submitted  as  

under:-

“II(a) Menace of unauthorized occupation is required to be  dealt  with  firmly  and  the  charging  of  penal  rent/market  rent is not a sufficient alternative.   In this connection,  it  may be stated here  that  the States  of  Orissa and Uttar  Pradesh have amended Section  441 of  the  Indian  Penal  Code, 1860 (in short  ‘the IPC’)  in its application to their  States by providing as under:-

…..  or  having  lawfully  entered  into  or  upon  such  property, remains there with the intention of taking  unauthorized  possession  or  making  unauthorized  use  of  such  property  and  fails  to  withdraw  such  property or its possession or use, when called upon  to do so by that another person by notice in writing,  duly  served  on  him,  is  said  to  have  committed  “criminal trespass”. (Orissa)

…..  or  having entered  into  or  upon such property,  whether before or after the coming into force of the  Criminal Law (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the  intention  of  taking  unauthorized  use  of  such  property fails to withdraw from such property or its  possession or use, when called upon to do so by that  

7

Page 8

another  person  by  notice  in  writing,  duly  served  upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said  to commit “criminal tresspass”. (Uttar Pradesh)

Thus,  in  these  two  States,  the  Governments  are  in  a  position  to  file  criminal  proceedings  for  the  offence  of  criminal trespass in the case of unauthorized occupation of  Government accommodation.  This acts as a deterrent for  any officer to live beyond the period prescribed.   

(b) Though  this  Court  in  one  of  its  Orders  in  these  proceedings had sought the opinion of the other States as  to  whether  they  would  like  to  make  amendments  on  similar  lines  vide  Orders  dated  24.07.2007  and  19.09.2007,   The response of  the various States was as  under:- a) Union of India said ‘No’ b) The Government of Bihar said ‘No’ c) The Government of Haryana said they would follow if  

the Union of India amends. d) The  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  said  the  matter  was  

under consideration. e) The State of Madhya Pradesh said that it will do so if  

need arises. f) The State of Karnataka said that it was drafting rules  

for this purpose. g) The State of Maharashtra said that it has approved  

the amendment. h) The State of  Uttarakhand said that the proposal  is  

sent for amendment. i) The State of Nagaland said that it will take steps for  

the amendment. j) The State of Sikkim said ‘No’ k) The State of Mizoram said that it will bring about the  

amendment if the Supreme Court directs. l) The State of Manipur said that it had amended and  

sent it to the Union of India for approval. m) The  Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh  welcomed  the  

amendment  but  was bound to follow the Union of  India. The remaining other States did not respond before  this Court.

III) Though  the  Act  provides  under  Section  11  for  offences and penalty for  unlawful  occupation and makes  the  offence  cognizable  under  Section  11A,  it  has  been  

8

Page 9

found as a matter of practice that the Estate Officers do  not  ordinarily  take  any  action  under  the  said  Section  because of  the  proviso  to  Section  11(1)  which  reads  as  under:-

“Provided that a person who, having been lawfully in  occupation of any public premises by virtue of any  authority (whether by way of grant, allotment or by  any  other  mode  whatsoever)  continues  to  be  in  occupation of such premises after such authority has  ceased  to  be  valid,  shall  not  be  guilty  of  such  offence.”

This proviso gives the window for not prosecuting a person  who had been allotted a premise but continues to occupy  so  unauthorisedly  after  the  authority  to  occupy  the  premises  ceases  to  be  valid.   Thus,  the  unauthorized  occupant continues to unlawfully occupy the government  accommodation without fear of any prosecution. IV It has also been seen that even where outstanding  rents  including  penal/market  rent  are  there,  there  are  persons  continuing  in  occupation  who  do  not  pay  the  amounts and there is difficulty in recovering the same.  In  this regard, apart from the provisions under the Act, there  are provisions under the Public Demand Recovery Act and  Revenue  Recovery  Act  which  can  be  applied  for  the  recovery  of  the  arrears  as  arrears  of  land  revenue,  because if the totality of the government houses in all the  States  of  India  are  taken into  account,  the  amount  due  works out to several crores.

V.(a) Fundamental  Rule  45-A  prescribes  for  the  Government  accommodation  to  be  occupied  and  details  the  licence  fee  etc.  including  the  continued  occupation/retention  beyond  the  permissible  period  and  guidelines  have  also  been  framed  for  that  purpose.  However, these rules and guidelines do not state anything  about  the  eviction  possibly  on  the  premise  that  Public  Premises Act will take care of it.

(b) The Supplementary Rules in Chapter VIII Division 26  made  under  Fundamental  Rule  45  provide  for  rules  for  allotment  of  residences  vide  SR  311  to  316.   Similarly,  under  Chapter  26B,  the  Allotment  of  Government  Residences  (General  Pool  in  Delhi)  Rules,  1963  are  provided in SR 317.

9

Page 10

What is of significance is that while providing these  rules, the government while allowing persons to continue  to  retain  the  Government  accommodation  does  not  provide  for  their  eviction,  again  presumably  because  of  the  provisions  of  the  Public  Premises  Act.   However,  as  explained  hereinabove  on  account  of  the  proviso  to  Section  11(1),  the  Estate  Officer  cannot  take  any  penal  action  against  such  unauthorized  occupants  except  for  going through the process of eviction.

It would have been useful if the Government while  promulgating  such  rules/orders/notifications  had  also  provided  for  certain  undertakings  to  be  taken  from  the  Government  officer  prior  to  his  allotment  to  make  sure  that  a  person  does  vacate  the  quarters  as  soon  as  his  period prescribed for its retention gets over.”

11) After  furnishing all  these materials,  he suggested the  

following guidelines to be issued by this Court which are as  

under:-

(i) At  the  time  of  allotment  of  the  Government  

accommodation to the three wings of the Government, viz.,  

the  Legislature,  the  Executive  and  the  Judiciary,  an  

undertaking should be  taken  from the allotee  that  he/she  

shall vacate the premises within the prescribed period under  

the  rules  failing  which he/she will  be  liable  to  disciplinary  

action apart from any other liability that he/she may incur.

(ii) All arrears of rent including penal/market rent shall be  

recovered as arrears of land revenue.

10

Page 11

(iii) The  proviso  to  Section  11(1)  of  the  Act  should  be  

declared  ultra  vires as  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  main  

provisions  of  providing  for  offences  and  penalty  for  the  

unauthorized occupation of government houses.

(iv) Any  person  who  is  in  service  and  continues  to  

unauthorisedly  occupy  the  government  accommodation  

beyond  the  period  of  retention  should  be  suspended  

immediately,  pending  disciplinary  action  as  per  the  

undertaking  given  at  the  time  of  taking  the  Government  

quarter.

(v) Since  allotment  of  Government  accommodation  is  a  

privilege given to the Ministers and Members of Paliament,  

the matter of unauthorized retention should be intimated to  

the  Speaker/Chairman  of  the  House and action should  be  

initiated  by  the  House  Committee  for  the  breach  of  the  

privileges  which  a  Member/Minister  enjoys  and  the  

appropriate Committee should recommend the same to the  

Speaker/Chairman for taking deterrent action.

(vi) In view of paucity of Government accommodation, all  

the allotments to persons belonging to categories other than  

11

Page 12

the  three  wings  of  the  Government  should  be  henceforth  

immediately cancelled and discontinued as such allotments  

are made on discretion which is mostly abused.

(vii) All  government  houses  which  have  been  turned  into  

memorials  should  be  retrieved,  memorials  in  Government  

houses should be removed and no more memorials should be  

allowed in future.

12) Before considering the response of the Union of India,  

States  and  the  Union  Territories  as  to  the  suggestions  of  

learned amicus curiae, let us consider the relevant provisions  

of the Act applicable to the persons in service.  The Act was  

enacted  to  provide for  eviction of  unauthorized occupants  

from public premises.  Section 2(e) of the Act defines `public  

premises’ as under:

“e) "public premises" means-   (1)  any  premises  belonging  to,  or  taken  on  lease  or  requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government,  and includes any such premises which have been placed  by  that  Government,  whether  before  or  after  the  commencement  of  the  Public  Premises  (Eviction  of  Unauthorised  Occupants)  Amendments  Act,  1980,  under  the control of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament  for providing residential accommodation to any member of  the staff of that Secretariat;   

12

Page 13

(2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on  behalf of,-   (i) any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies  Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of the  paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or  any company which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of  that Act ) of the first-mentioned company.”   

Section 2(g) defines “unauthorized occupation” as under:

“(g)  "unauthorised occupation",  in  relation  to  any public  premises,  means  the  occupation  by  any  person  of  the  public premises without authority for such occupation, and  includes the continuance in occupation by any person of  the public premises after the authority (whether by way of  grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was  allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been  determined for any reason whatsoever.”

Section 4 of the Act speaks about issue of show cause notice  

before passing an order of eviction and Section 5 deals with  

eviction  of  unauthorized  occupants.   Section  7  relates  to  

direction for payment of rent or damages in respect of public  

premises.  Section 9 speaks about appeal against the order  

of  the  Estate  Officer.   In  terms  of  Section  10,  the  order  

passed by the Appellate Authority shall be final and shall not  

be  called  in  question  in  any  original  suit,  application  or  

execution  proceedings  whereas  Section  11  speaks  about  

offences and penalty.

13

Page 14

13) Apart  from  the  above  provisions  of  the  Act,  for  the  

benefit of the persons working in Central service, the Central  

Government  framed  certain  rules  which  are  called  

“Fundamental Rules”.  Among other rules, FR 45, 45A and  

45B are relevant which are as under:-

“F.R.45 The Central Government may make rules or issue  orders laying down the principles governing the allotment  to officers serving under its administrative control, for use  by them as residences, of such buildings owned or leased  by it, or such portions thereof, as the Central Government  may make available for the purpose.  Such rules or orders  may  lay  down  different  principles  for  observance  in  different  localities  or  in  respect  of  different  classes  of  residences, and may prescribe the circumstances in which  such an officer shall be considered to be in occupation of a  residence.”

“F.R. 45-A  I. Deleted II. For the purpose of the assessment of licence fee, the  

capital  cost  of  a  residence  owned  by  Government  shall  include  the  cost  or  value  of  sanitary,  water  supply  and  electric  installations  and  fittings;  and  shall be either - (a) the  cost  of  acquiring  or  constructing  the  

residence  including  the  cost  of  site  and  its  preparation and any capital expenditure incurred  after acquisition or construction; or when this is  not known;

(b) the present value of the residence, including the  value of the site.”

“F.R.  45-B.  I.  This  rule  applies  to  Government  servants  other than those to whom Rule 45-A applies or than those  occupying  residence  belonging  to  the  Indian  Railway  or  rented at the cost of railway revenues.

II. For  the  purpose  of  sub-clause(b)  Clause  III,  the  capital  cost  of  a  residence  owned  by  Government  shall  not  include the cost  or  value of  such special  services and installations (including furniture, tennis  

14

Page 15

courts  and  sanitary,  water  supply  or  electric  installations and fittings_ as it may contain; and shall  be either :– (a) the  cost  of  acquiring  or  constructing  the  

residence,  including  the  cost  of  site  and  its  preparation and any capital expenditure incurred  after acquisition or construction; or, when this is  not known.

(b)The present value of the residence including the  value of site.”  

14) This  Court  had  an  occasion  to  consider  the  similar  

grievance/problem  viz.,  availability  of  government  

accommodation in Delhi in Shiv Sagar Tiwari (supra).   In  

this case, taking note of the fact that Delhi being the capital  

of the country and is also the seat of the Central Government  

and that the issue applies to a large number of persons, this  

Court  analysed  the  entire  issue  relating  to  government  

accommodation and various rules applicable.  Even in that  

matter, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the present amicus curiae assisted  

this  Court.   Though  the  said  order  was  confined  to  the  

National Capital Territory of Delhi, this Court has categorized  

various groups, viz., ‘vacated list’, ‘arrears list’, ‘change from  

same type’, ‘change to higher type’, ‘medical cases within  

the  existing  policy’,  ‘medical  cases  outside  the  existing  

policy’, ‘5 year category’, ‘infructuous cases’, ‘out of turn and  

15

Page 16

above  entitlement’,  ‘functional  grounds’,  ‘eviction  cases’,  

‘procedure  for  eviction’  etc.   After  analyzing  all  these  

categories with facts and figures as well as the provisions  

applicable,  this  Court  summed  up  various  principles  and  

issued directions for the authorities concerned.  Since we are  

considering  the  problem  of  such  government  

accommodation/residential  quarters/bungalows  etc.  at  the  

national  level,  the  guidelines  and the  ultimate  decision in  

Shiv  Sagar  Tiwari  (supra) framed  for  National  Capital  

Territory of Delhi may be immensely helpful.   

15) We have already referred to the suggestions made by  

learned  amicus curiae; now let us consider the response of  

Union of India, States and some of the Union Territories.  On  

behalf  of  the  Union  of  India,  Shri  Manish  Kumar  Garg,  

Director  of  Estates,  Ministry  of  Urban  Development,  

Government of India, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi has filed an  

affidavit on 16.11.2011.  Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional  

Solicitor  General,  took us  through the  stand taken  by the  

Ministry  of  Urban  Development.   Since  the  department  

concerned  has  expressed  its  views  about  suggestions  put  

16

Page 17

forward  by  learned  amicus,  we  intend  to  incorporate  the  

same which are as under:-  

“1. It is submitted that the allotment of government house  to  the  employees/officers  of  the  three  wings  of  the  government,  the  Legislature,  the  Executive  and  the  Judiciary  is  made  under  the  provisions  of  allotment  of  Government  Residences  (General  Pool  in  Delhi)  Rules,  1963 as amended from time to time.  These rules provide  for  allotment,  cancellation,  retention,  penalties  for  non- vacation  of  quarters  within  the  permissible  retention  period.  It is submitted that the applicant has to be given  an  undertaking  in  “Application  Form”  itself  that  he/she  agrees  to  abide  by  the  Allotment  of  Government  Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963 also in the  Acceptance Form,  the  allottee  undertakes  to  vacate  the  accommodation  allotted  to  him/her  within  the stipulated  period.   However,  because  of  certain  unavoidable  circumstances  which  may  be  beyond  the  control  of  allottee,  the  allottee  sometimes  retains  the  house  for  a  few  days  beyond  the  permissible  retention  period  for  which damages rate is charged vis-à-vis action for eviction  under  Public  Premises  (Eviction  of  Unauthorised  Occupants)  Act,  1971.   Therefore,  the  provision  of  disciplinary may not be desirable.  In case of unauthorized  occupation, in the case of subletting, apart from charging  damages (penal rent) and action is initiated for eviction,  disciplinary  proceedings  are  initiated  against  the  unauthorized  occupant.   In  view  of  these  provisions  already existing in the rules further undertaking may not  be necessary.

2.  As  per  the  existing  provisions  penal/market  rent  is  recovered from the unauthorized occupant by raising bills  on the employee or his/her department.  In case of retiring  employees, 10% of gratuity is withheld for adjustment of  outstanding dues on account of licence fee and damages.  The  withheld  amount  of  gratuity  is  released  by  the  employer  only  after  the retired employee obtains  a “No  Demand Certificate” from the Directorate of Estates after  making payment for all the dues and submits the same to  his/her employer.  In case some retired employees do not  turn up for “No Demand Certificate”, and dues on account  of  licence  fee/damages  remain  unrecovered,  action  is  

17

Page 18

initiated for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue  under the provisions of the Act.

3. It  is  submitted that  Section  11(1)  of  the Act deals  with  three categories  of  unauthorized occupation  – (i)  A  person who unlawfully occupies a public premises (ii)A  person who having been lawfully in occupation of a public  premises  by  virtue  of  authority  etc.,  continues  to  be  in  occupation  of  such  premises  after  such  authority  has  ceased to be valid and (iii) A person who has been evicted  from the public premises under the Act again occupies the  premises without any authority.  While Section 11(1) of the  Act  provides  for  punishment  to  unlawful  occupants,  the  proviso of the section deals with unauthorized occupants  due  to  expiry  of  licence  or  allotment  period.   Both  the  categories i.e., (i) and (ii) are not comparable.  Therefore,  the provisions meet the requirements to deal with various  types  of  unauthorized  occupants  and  hence  cannot  be  declared ultra vires.  

4. A person who is in Government service is liable to  surrender Government accommodation in case of his/her  transfer  to  an  ineligible  office  at  the  same  station  or  outside.  However, with a view to enable the government  servant  to  make  arrangements  for  settling  his  family,  retention is permitted upto 8 months i.e. 2 months under  SR-317-B and 6 months under SR-317-B-22.  In the case of  retention  of  accommodation  beyond  the  permissible  retention  period,  the  employee/family  is  liable  to  be  evicted from the house under the provisions of the Act and  damages are charged from the concerned employee.

However,  there  may  be  a  few  cases  where  the  allottee  or  his/her  family  retains  the  accommodation  beyond  the  permissible  period  due  to  unavoidable  circumstances,  say,  in  the  case  of  regularization,  re- posting or severe illness for which damages is charged vis- à-vis action under the provisions of the Act.  However, in  the  case  of  unauthorized  occupation  on  account  of  subletting, the Directorate of Estates cancels the allotment  and  initiates  eviction  proceedings  and  the  controlling  department  of  the  unauthorized  allottee  proceeds  for  disciplinary  action  including  placing  him/her  under  suspension.  Therefore,  the suggestion to put all serving  unauthorized  occupants  under  suspension  will  be  too  harsh and does not fall within the ambit of provisions of  

18

Page 19

the Act.  Moreover, suspension is resorted to under certain  specific circumstances as a matter of administrative action  under CCS (CCA) Rules.

5. Allotment  to  a  Union  Minister  is  made  by  the  Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development as  per provisions of Ministers’ Residences Rules, 1962.  The  Ministers,  on  ceasing  to  be  a  Minister,  are  required  to  vacate  the  official  accommodation  within  one  month.  Alternate accommodation, if necessary, is allotted as per  their entitlement by the House Committee concerned.  The  allotment  to  Members  of  Parliament  is  made  by  the  respective  House  Committees,  viz.,  Lok  Sabha  House  Committee, Rajya Sabha House Committee.  However, in  the  event  of  unauthorized  occupation,  the  respective  House  Committees  refer  the  case  to  the  Directorate  of  Estates  for  initiating  eviction  proceedings  under  the  provisions of the Act.  Allotment to Members of Parliament  is  also  made  by  the  Directorate  of  Estates  from  the  General Pool as per laid down guidelines.  Hence, such a  matter  does  not  fall  within  the  purview  of  breach  of  privilege.

6. Allotment of government accommodation to persons  belonging to categories other than the three wings of the  Government,  viz.,  Journalists,  eminent  Artists,  freedom  fighters, social workers etc. is made as per provisions in  the  guidelines  framed  as  per  direction  of  the  Supreme  Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 585/1984 titled Shiv Sagar  Tiwari vs. Union of India.  These allotments are made out  of  the  5% discretionary  quota  allowed  by  the  Supreme  Court.   In  view  of  this,  cancellation  of  such  allotments  already  made  and  discontinuation  of  such  further  allotment may not be desirable.

7. The  government  houses  which  have  been  turned  into  memorial  were  allotted  on  lease  to  respective  Trusts/Societies  by  the  Cabinet  Committee  on  Accommodation in accordance with the guidelines framed  for the purpose as per direction of the Supreme Court in  C.P. (W) No. 585/1994 titled Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of  India.  The lease agreement has been executed between  the Government of India and the respective Trusts etc. for  specified period.   It  would,  therefore,  be violation of  the  agreement if such houses are retrieved before the lease  period  is  over.   The guidelines  formulated  in  November  

19

Page 20

2000 put complete ban on the conversion of Government  bungalows  into  memorials  of  the  departed  leaders.   As  such,  the  suggestion  given  by  the  amicus  curiae has  already  been  taken  care  of.   The  present  guidelines  provide  for  allotment  of  accommodation  to  non- Government organizations which are working for national  interest or for meeting international obligations.”    

16) It is clear from the response submitted by the Ministry  

of Urban Development that in view of various provisions in  

the  Act  for  taking  action  against  unauthorized  occupants,  

existing  provisions  would  suffice.   It  is  also  clear  that  in  

respect  of  retiring  employees,  without  clearing  arrears  of  

rent/penal/  market  rent  and  No  Due  Certificate  from  the  

Directorate  of  Estates,  the  retirement  benefits  will  not  be  

settled and as per the provisions, 10% of the gratuity is to be  

withheld for adjustment of outstanding dues.   

17) The Department also highlighted that for allotment to  

Members of Parliament, it is the “House of Committee” which  

controls  such  allotment  and  no  further  guidelines  are  

required for the same.   

18) It was also pointed out that for the persons from special  

categories, viz., journalists, eminent artists, freedom fighters,  

20

Page 21

social workers etc., guidelines framed by this Court earlier,  

govern the issue and no further direction is required.    

19) On behalf of the State of Sikkim, the Principal Resident  

Commissioner has filed an affidavit highlighting the position  

and  the  procedure  that  is  in  vogue  in  the  State.   He  

emphasized  that  the  Government  never  allows anyone  to  

overstay  including  unauthorized  retention  of  government  

accommodation by the Ministers and Members of Parliament.

20) On  behalf  of  the  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  

Directorate  of  Estates  has  filed  an  affidavit  wherein  it  is  

highlighted  that  so  far  as  the  employees  of  the  State  

Government, executive and judiciary are concerned, there is  

no objection in taking an undertaking as suggested by this  

Court.  However, according to the government, the houses  

allotted  to  the  members  of  the  legislative  assembly,  

members  of  parliament  and  ministers  are  concerned,  the  

matter  needs  to  be  examined  after  taking  views  of  the  

Secretary,  Vidhan  Sabha.   It  is  also  pointed  out  that  the  

Government  of Madhya Pradesh has issued separate rules  

called  Madhya  Pradesh  Government  Quarters  Allotment  

21

Page 22

Rules, 2000 which provides effective mechanism for eviction  

of unauthorized persons and recovery of rent, if any.

21) On  behalf  of  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  Principal  

Secretary to Government, General Administration (Accomm.)  

Department has filed a reply affidavit furnishing information  

as to the position in the State and the steps that are being  

taken by them.  

22) On behalf of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, Director,  

Estates  Department  has  filed  an  affidavit  informing  about  

various steps being taken by them.  He also submitted that  

the  government  is  ready to comply with further/additional  

directions being issued by this Court.

23) Union  Territory  of  Puducherry  through  its  Secretary  

(Housing)  highlighted  the  availability  of  government  

quarters,  number  of  unauthorized  occupants  and  the  

procedure being followed for eviction of those persons.  He  

also  informed  this  Court  that  all  the  directions  and  

instructions of the Government of India are being followed in  

the Union Territory of Puducherry.

22

Page 23

24) On  behalf  of  the  State  of  Maharashtra,  Deputy  

Secretary,  General  Administration  Department  filed  an  

affidavit  highlighting  various  instructions  issued  to  the  

competent  authority  dealing  with  unauthorized  occupants.  

He also furnished a  statement  showing the  eviction cases  

pending with the competent authority and also the cases in  

which rent recovery is going on.

25) On behalf  of  the  State  of Haryana,  Special  Secretary  

Coordination  from  the  office  of  Chief  Secretary  to  

Government,  Haryana  filed  an  affidavit  conveying  their  

comments  on  the  propositions  made  by  learned  amicus  

curiae.

26) On  behalf  of  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh,  Assistant  

Estates Officer, Government of U.P. submitted his response  

as to the suggestions of the learned amicus curiae.  He also  

highlighted that necessary amendments should be made in  

their allotment rules.  According to him, in respect of arrears  

of rent and damages, the rules enable them to recover the  

same  as  arrears  of  land  revenue.   The  State  has  also  

highlighted that stringent provision, viz., Section 11 of the  

23

Page 24

U.P.  Public  Premises  (Eviction  of  Unauthorised  Occupants)  

Act, 1972 is in force.  As per the said provision, if any person  

who  has  been  evicted  from  any  public  premises  again  

occupies the same without authority for such occupation, he  

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may  

extend to 1 year or fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or  

with both.  He also highlighted the allotment procedure in  

respect  of  journalists,  the  legislature,  the  executive,  the  

judiciary as well as memorials available in their State.   

27) As per the details furnished by learned  amicus curiae  

and various comments made by Union of India as well  as  

some of the States and the Union Territories, it  cannot be  

said that at present there is no machinery to check eviction  

of unauthorized occupants as well as recovery of arrears of  

rent including penal charges.  However, it is not in dispute  

that in spite of existing provisions/rules, directions etc., the  

fact  remains  same  and  the  persons  from  all  the  three  

branches either by their influence or by lengthy procedure as  

provided  in  the  Act,  continue  to  stay  in  the  government  

accommodation by paying paltry amount either  by way of  

24

Page 25

rent or penalty.  In these circumstances, we are of the view  

that in addition to the statutory provisions, there is need to  

frame guidelines for the benefit of both Union of India/States  

and Union Territories for better utilization of their premises.  

28) The following suggestions would precisely address the  

grievances  of  the  Centre  and  the  State  governments  in  

regard to the unauthorized occupants:

Suggestions:

(i) As a precautionary measure, a notice should be sent to  

the allottee/officer/employee concerned under Section 4  

of the PP Act three months prior to the date of his/her  

retirement  giving  advance  intimation  to  vacate  the  

premises.

(ii) The Department concerned from where the government  

servant  is  going  to  retire  must  be  made  liable  for  

fulfilling  the  above-mentioned  formalities  as  well  as  

follow up actions so that rest of the provisions of the Act  

can be effectively utilized.

(iii) The  principles  of  natural  justice  have  to  be  followed  

while serving the notice.

25

Page 26

(iv) After following the procedure as mentioned in SR 317-B-

11(2) and 317-B-22 proviso 1 and 2, within 7 working  

days,  send  a  show  cause  notice  to  the  person  

concerned in view of the advance intimation sent three  

months before the retirement.   

(v) Date  of  appearance  before  the  Estate  Officer  or  for  

personal  hearing as  mentioned in  the Act  after  show  

cause notice should not be more than 7 working days.       

(vi) Order of eviction should be passed as expeditiously as  

possible preferably within a period of 15 days.   

(vii) If,  as  per  the  Estate  Officer,  the  occupant’s  case  is  

genuine in terms of Section 5 of the Act then, in the first  

instance, an extension of not more than 30 days should  

be granted.

(viii) The  responsibility  for  issuance  of  the  genuineness  

certificate should be on the Department concerned from  

where  the  government  servant  has  retired  for  the  

occupation of the premises for next 15 days and further.  

Giving  additional  responsibility  to  the  department  

26

Page 27

concerned  will  help  in  speedy  vacation  of  such  

premises.  Baseless  or  frivolous  applications  for  

extensions have to be rejected within seven days.   

(ix) If as per the Estate Officer the occupant’s case is not  

genuine,  not  more  than  15  days’  time  should  be  

granted and thereafter, reasonable force as per Section  

5(2) of the Act may be used.

(x) There must be a time frame within how much time the  

Estate Officer has to decide about the quantum of rent  

to be paid.   

(xi) The same procedure must be followed for damages.

(xii) The arrears/damages should be collected as arrears of  

land revenue as mentioned in Section 14 of the Act.

(xiii) There  must  be  a  provision  for  compound  interest,  

instead of simple interest as per Section 7.

(xiv) To  make  it  more  stringent,  there  must  be  some  

provision  for  stoppage  or  reduction  in  the  monthly  

pension till the date of vacation of the premises.

(xv) Under Section 9 (2), an appeal shall lie from an order of  

eviction and of rent/damages within 12 days from the  

27

Page 28

day  of  publication  or  on  which  the  order  is  

communicated respectively.   

(xvi) Under  Section  9(4),  disposal  of  the  appeals  must  be  

preferably  within  a  period  of  30  days  in  order  to  

eliminate unnecessary delay in disposal of such cases.

(xvii) The liberty of the appellate officer to condone the delay  

in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the Act should be  

exercised  very  reluctantly  and  it  should  be  an  

exceptional practice and not a general rule.   

(xviii)  Since  allotment  of  government  accommodation is  a  

privilege  given  to  the  Ministers  and  Members  of  

Parliament, the matter of unauthorized retention should  

be intimated to the Speaker/Chairman of the House and  

action should be initiated by the House Committee for  

the breach of the privileges which a Member/Minister  

enjoys  and  the  appropriate  Committee  should  

recommend  to  the  Speaker/Chairman  for  taking  

appropriate action/eviction within a time bound period.

(xix) Judges of any forum shall vacate the official residence  

within  a  period  of  one  month  from  the  date  of  

28

Page 29

superannuation/retirement.   However,  after  recording  

sufficient  reason(s),  the  time  may  be  extended  by  

another one month.

(xx) Henceforth, no memorials should be allowed in future in  

any  Government  houses  earmarked  for  residential  

accommodation.  

29) It  is  unfortunate  that  the  employees,  officers,  

representatives of people and other high dignitaries continue  

to stay in  the  residential  accommodation provided by the  

Government of India though they are no longer entitled to  

such  accommodation.   Many  of  such  persons  continue  to  

occupy residential  accommodation commensurate with the  

office(s) held by them  earlier and which are beyond their  

present  entitlement.   The  unauthorized  occupants  must  

recollect that rights and duties are correlative as the rights of  

one person entail the duties of another person similarly the  

duty  of  one  person  entails  the  rights  of  another  person.  

Observing this, the unauthorized occupants must appreciate  

that their act of overstaying in the premise directly infringes  

the right of another.  No law or directions can entirely control  

29

Page 30

this act of disobedience but for the self realization among the  

unauthorized occupants.  The matter is disposed of with the  

above terms and no order is required in I.As for impleadment  

and intervention.   

...…………….………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

.…....…………………………………J.          (RANJAN GOGOI)                         

NEW DELHI; JULY 05, 2013.  

30