TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) A notice dated 31 "March, 2000 was issued to respon­dent No.2 indicating therein that as per the report dated 318t March, 2000 of the draughtsman, the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of a nazul land which belongs to the State Govt. and that the Nagar Palika is facing a loss of Rs. 342/- p.m. and, consequently, directed the respondent No. 2 to vacate the premises in question. Since the premises was not vacated, inspite of the receiving the notice, the petitioner filed an application u/S 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Evic­tion of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 to vacate the premises. In this no­tice, it was contended that the land is a nazul land in which respondent No.2 was in unauthorized occupation and had also raised some constructions and inspite of the notice dated 31st March, 2000, the respondent had not vacated the pre­mises and, consequently, the notice u/S 4 (1). Another notice u/S 7 (3) of the Act was also issued indicating that the respondent No.2 was liable to pay damages @ Rs. 342 p.m. for the period 01/04/1997 to 30/06/2000 for unauthorized occupa­tion of the premises in question.The respondent No.2, upon receiving the notice, filed his objection and contended that his forefathers were given the land to reside while working as labourers during the British rule when a tunnel was being constructed for a railway track from Haridwar to Dehradun and, since then, it has been in their occupation and has gone down to his father and to himself. The respondents contended that they were in authorized occupation and, if unautho­rized, was liable to be regularized.
(2.) THE Prescribed authority, after considering the material, found that there was no allotment in favour of the respondent and, consequently, concluded that the respondent was living unauthorizedly on the plot in question and, conse­quently, directed eviction of the respondent and also directed to pay compensa­tion amounting to Rs.13,338/- for wrongful occupation of the premises in ques­tion. The respondent No.2, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal which was allowed by an order dated 29th July, 2003. The Appellate Court held that the notice issued u/S 4 of the Act was vague, as it did not indicate the date o the year when the petitioner occupied the premises unauthorisedly nor the notice indicated the year or the month when the constructions were raised. The appellate court found that the petitioner has been living in the premises for more than 35 years and, therefore, such occupation could not be held to be unautho­rized and, in any case, the petitioner could not be evicted after being in occupa­tion for more than 35 years. The Appellate Court, Consequently, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Heard Shri Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) ONE of the questions which arises for consideration is, whether the notice contemplated the grounds for eviction or not and whether such grounds are required to be mentioned with precision in the notice or not ? For facility, the provi­sion of Section 4 of the Act is extracted hereunder:- "4. Issue of notice to show-cause against order of eviction. - (1) If the prescribed authority, either of its own motion or on an application or re­port received on behalf of the State Government or the corporate author­ity, is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the prescribed authority shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show-cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) The notice shall, - (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons, who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the pubic premises, to show-cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3) The prescribed authority shall cause the notice to be served either personally on all those persons concerned or by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises and in any other manner, provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (4) Where the prescribed authority knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the publc premises, then, without preju­dice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by registered post or by deliv­ering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed." ;