ANJANI KUMAR,J. - (1.) THE case has been taken up in the revised list. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. No one appears for the contesting respondent.
(2.) SINCE all the aforesaid three writ petitions raise common question of facts and law, therefore they are being disposed of finally by a common judgment. By means of the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner -Union of India, in all the aforesaid three petitions, has challenged the order dated 31 -10 - 1987 passed by Respondent No. 1 under the provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby the Respondent No. 1 has allowed the appeals filed by Respondent No. 2, in each petition and set aside the order dated 23 -7 -1984 passed by the Estate Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'prescribed authority).
(3.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions are that certain shops were constructed by the petitioner near platform of the Railway Station, District Deoria, which were allotted through auction for a period of three years to the Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'contesting respondents') in the year 1972. Since, as per averments made in the writ petitions, the contesting respondents had encroached more than area allotted to him, therefore notice was issued by the petitioner to vacate the premises which was encroached upon by contesting respondents and to pay damages. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the prescribed authority, who after registering a case issued notice to the contesting respondents calling upon to show cause in writing as to why the order of eviction should not be made and also why the damages should not be awarded for illegal occupation. The prescribed authority after considering the reply submitted by the contesting respondents and the material, and evidence on record has arrived at the conclusion that the contesting respondents were unauthorised occupants of the Public Premises within the meaning of the word used under the Act and they have not vacated the same on notice being served upon them, therefore the order of eviction has been passed. It is this order, which has been challenged by the contesting respondents before the appellate authority.;