AITWARU LAL AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of the report of the Patwari dated 30th January, 1986, proceedings Under Section 4 and 5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1972 was initiated. Notice was issued to the Petitioners to show cause why they should not be evicted from plot Nos. 496 and 497 which was unauthorizedly occupied by them. The Petitioners filed their objection stating therein that they have been in possession on the aforesaid plot from the time of their forefathers and have acquired bhumidari rights and that they have not raised any unauthorized construction. The Petitioners, in the alternate, also contended that the land is sanjayat land and, therefore, the Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 comes into play and that no notice under the Pubic Premises Act could be issued since the land is not a "public premises".

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority, after considering the material evidence on record and, after considering the evidence of the Kanoongo found that the land, even though, is recorded as a banjar land, nonetheless, it belongs to the State Govt. and that the Petitioners were unauthorisedly raising constructions. The Prescribed Authority also found that no proof had been given to indicate that the land was sanjayat land nor any prove was filed that the Petitioners or their forefathers were in continuous possession. The Prescribed Authority, accordingly, directed eviction of the Petitioners from the plot in question.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the notice Under Section 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act was invalid and that the mandatory ingredients were not mentioned in the notice and, on this basis, the entire proceedings was liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the land in any case was sanjayat land and that the Petitioners and their forefather were in possession and that the land was not covered under the Public Premises Act and that the provisions of KUJA Act was applicable. The learned Counsel accordingly submitted that since the KUJA Act was applicable, the proceedings for eviction Under Section 4 and 5 of the Act could not be issued. The learned Counsel also submitted that in view of the Government Order dated 16th February, 1981, the Petitioners were entitled to be given the benefit of said G.O. and that assuming that they had unauthorisedly occupied the government land, their occupation was liable to be regularized.