Movable structure removal without notice upheld; writ relief and compensation refused amid rival title claims.

A hoarding erected on public premises was treated as a movable structure because it could be removed without injury to the land or the structure, even though fixed on iron pillars and set up for a limited period. Under the special statutory scheme, movable structures or fixtures may be removed without prior notice, and the requirement of natural justice does not override that express procedure. The High Court also noted that rival claims to title could not be finally decided in writ proceedings under Article 226, and mandamus or compensation could not be granted on that basis. The removal without notice was therefore lawful and the writ relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the hoarding erected on public premises was a movable structure removable without notice under Section 5-A(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and whether a writ of mandamus and compensation could be granted in the face of a rival claim to title.

Analysis: The dispute involved rival claims over the land on which the hoarding stood, and such title controversy could not be finally decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the statutory scheme of Section 5-A, sub-section (2) applies to immovable structures or fixtures and requires notice, while sub-section (3) permits removal without notice of movable structures or fixtures. The hoarding was placed on iron pillars embedded in the earth, but it could be removed without injury to the structure or the land and was erected for a fixed period, so it answered the description of a movable structure or fixture. In that situation, the statute deliberately excludes prior notice, and the principles of natural justice do not override the express procedure.

Conclusion: The hoarding was rightly treated as a movable structure falling under Section 5-A(3), so its removal without notice was lawful. The writ of mandamus and the award of compensation were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the writ order and declined relief to the hoarding owner, leaving the rival title issue to be worked out in appropriate civil proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an unauthorised structure on public premises is movable within the meaning of the special statute, it may be removed without notice under the statutory power, and a writ court will not adjudicate rival title claims or compel restoration by mandamus.

---