SATESHWAR PRASAD SATI Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Lokendra Dobhal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. The petitioner is in occupation of some land in village Deo-Asthan, Patti Pokhari, District Chamoli. It is alleged that he applied for the regularization of his unauthorized possession before the authority concerned. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, a notice under section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 dated 8.5.1980 was is­sued alleging that since the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation, the peti­tioner was directed to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the premises in question. The petitioner appeared and filed his objections. The Prescribed Authority by an order dated 15th October, 1980 passed an order of eviction. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed by an order dated 22nd May, 1981. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) THE only ground urged before this Court is, that the notice did not con­template the grounds on which the petitioner was being evicted and such grounds were required to be mentioned in the notice under section 4 of the Act. A copy of the said notice has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Upon a perusal of such notice, one finds that no grounds has been mentioned in the said notice.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that the notice issued under section 4 shall specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is pro­posed to be made. Section 2 (g) of the Act defines unauthorized occupant which is extracted hereunder: