BALDEO RAJ Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are being disposed of by common judgment since they give rise to common questions of facts and law.

(2.) PROCEEDING was initiated against the petitioners by notices purporting to be under section 4 (1) of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In writ petition no. 602 of 1979, the notice was with respect to plot no. 223/2 covering an area of 10 bighas. In the other petition the notice related to plot no. 217/2 having an area of 18 bighas. The allegations were that the petitioners had stepped in occupation over these plots without authority and hence they were liable to eviction. Objections were filed by the petitioners in both the cases contending inter alia that the land was not "public premises" within the meaning of the Act and therefore, recourse could not be had to section 4 thereof to evict them. The objections did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority which passed the order dated July 17, 1978 in both the cases under section 5 (1) of the Act directing eviction of the petitioners from the said land. The petitioners preferred appeals in both the cases as provided under section 9 of the Act, but the same were dismissed by the appellate authority on October 18, 1978.

(3.) FROM the discussion made in the above, it follows that the Prescribed Authority acted without jurisdiction in proceeding under the Act and directing the eviction of the petitioners on the basis thereof. The lower appellate court has overlooked that in the objections filed particularly in paragraph 7 thereof a plea was specifically raised to the effect that the land could not be classed as 'public premises' within the meaning of the Act and that eviction, if at all, had to be proceeded with under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.