STATE OF U P Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BAHRAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In these three writ petitions common question of law is involved for determination.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the contesting opposite parties were allotted land which was declared surplus in proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. These leases were granted to the opposite parties for a period of three years under the provisions of said Act. They were sought to be evicted from the land in question under Section 5 (1) of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short Act No XXII of 1972). The Prescribed Authority passed Order of eviction of the contesting opposite parties under the said provisions. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority, Bhinga, district Bahraich, the contesting opposite parties preferred appeals which were heard and allowed by common judgment and order dated 6-4-1979 passed by the District Judge, Bahraich. The appeals were allowed holding that the Prescribed Authority acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the orders of eviction under Section 5 (1) of Act No. XXII of 1972. Learned District Judge has observed that proceedings for eviction of the allottees of surplus land made under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act could not be taken under the provisions of Act No. XXII of 1972 referred to above. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. Thus order dated 6-4-1979 passed by the District Judge, Bahraich has been challenged in writ petition No. 363 of 1980 and similarly order and judgment dated 13-7-1979 and 27-2-1979 passed by District Judge, Bahraich have been challenged in writ petition Nos. 879 of 1980 and 364 of 1980 respectively.

(3.) IN view of the above, I find no merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the contesting opposite parties, who are allottees of said land only for a period of three years, could be evicted under the provisions of U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. If after expiry of the period for which the lease was allotted under sub-section *2) of Section 26 of the Act the allottees fail to vacate the land, then the Collector could resume the land under Section 26-A evicting them under sub-rule 5 of Rule 59 read with Section 26-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Their eviction could not be made under Section 5 (1) of the U. P. Act No XXII of 1972.