@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (e) No. 4143 OF 2010 President Jan Kalyan Samiti, Institute of National and Foraign Language, Sector 8, 32 Bunglow Chowk Bhiali Thxnugh its President Prabhunath Mishra S10 R/o Road No. 18 Steel Nagar Camp-1 Bhilai, District Durg (CG). \ Steel Authority of India Limited Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). WRIT PETITION IIIA 22.6!227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (s3 :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.sharma, m.) Present:— Shn' Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. PETITIONER VERUS S RESPONDENT ~Chotkan Mishl‘a, aged about 55 yeaxs, Shn' NIK. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for the respondent as a cavators. 1. Heard. 2. Onier impugned dated 1617/ 2010 paSSed by Distn'ct Judge, Durg in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 16/2010 ailirming the order dated 7/4/ 20 10 passed by competent authority constituted under'githe Property Odicer, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 perused whereby competent authority has passed the eviction order against the petitioner whom premises owned by respondent was allotted. Order was challenged before the District Judge in appeal was amrmed the order of the competent authority. 3. Leéfned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that admittedly respondent is a owner of the premises allotted to the ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 04/08/2010) ® Section 2 of Sub Section 3(g) demles unauthorized occupants which reads as follows:— “Unauthorized 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 " ‘ i‘ other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed io~ occupy the premises has expired or has been determinedfor any reason whatsoever. 7. As per definition of unauthorized occupants after determination of the occupancy the petitioner was in possession of the premises therefore the occupation of petitioner became unauthorized occupant and respondent become entitled for eviction, Appreciating the aforesaid legal prepositions authority and Court below have passed the order impugned. On due consideration, I do not find any illegality in the order requiring any inference in terms of under Article 227 of‘ the Constitution of India. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. M " 8. Parties shall bear their own costs. Sd/— i T.P. Sharma Judge