MANOJ SINGH GAIDA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, BAGESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 28.07.2000, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Kapkot, District Bageshwar as well as judgment and order dated 30.10.2002, passed by the District Judge, Bageshwar whereby notice under Section 4 (1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 was confirmed and petitioner was directed to be evicted from the land of Khasra No. 2175 -M, measuring 0.3 muthi.

(2.) ON the report submitted by the Patwari, Kapkot dated 15.06.2000, learned Prescribed Authority was pleased to issue notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act to the petitioner herein calling the petitioner as to why he should not be dis -possessed / evicted from the property of Khait No. 2175 -M, measuring 0.3 muthi since petitioner is in un -authorised occupation thereof. Reply of the petitioner was called on or before 21st July, 2000. Petitioner herein has furnished his reply saying his father has purchased the property, in question, from Jaman Singh through agreement to sell, who was in possession of the land, in question, for the last more than 20 years. It was further stated in the reply that property purchased by the father of the petitioner is a part of Khait No. 2171 and is not part of Khait No. 2175 as alleged in the notice.

(3.) PATWARI has appeared in the witness box and has deposed that before submitting the report, he has inspected the spot personally and he has found that petitioner was raising construction over the land of Khait No. 2175. While appearing in the witness box, petitioner herein has stated that he does not know the khait number of the property purchased by his father. Not only this, petitioner never applied before the Prescribed Authority for the survey of the property as to whether house of the petitioner was constructed in Khait No. 2171 or Khait No. 2175. Having discussed the entire evidence and in view of the statement of the petitioner that he does not know the khait number of the property purchased, learned Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that petitioner was raising construction over the land of khait No. 2175 -M which was recorded as property of the State Government. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also came to be dismissed.