- (1.) THIS is an application for recall of the order dated 09.01.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 17943 of 2009.
(2.) IT would be worthwhile to reproduce the entire order dated 09.01.2012, recall whereof is prayed for. The order dated 09.01.2012 is being reproduced herein below: "All substitution applications are allowed. Proceedings under Section 4/5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 have been initiated against the petitioner on an application made by Nagarpalika, Mainpuri to its Chairman. The proceedings were decided ex-parte under an order dated 19.9.2008 and it was held that the premises was not covered within the definition of public premises. An application for recall was made on behalf of the State on the ground that the order has been passed without hearing the State. The land in fact was Nazul property and, therefore, public premises. This application has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority under order dated 2.3.2009 after recording a finding that the State had to be heard before recording a finding that the property in the facts of the case was not a public premises. Accordingly after setting aside the earlier order, the proceedings has restored the proceedings. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records. In my opinion, the issue as to whether the premises is covered within the definition of public premises under Section 9 of P.P. Act or not is an issue which did need examination after affording opportunity to the state specifically in the circumstances when it has been stated that the premises was a Nazul property.
(3.) THIS Court may only record that such issues require consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence and, therefore, the prescribed authority has rightly set aside its earlier order whereby the proceedings were closed after holding that the premises was not a public premise in absence of the State. THIS Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order recalling the earlier decision in the matter and restoring the proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an observation has been made in the impugned order that the premises being Nazul property is covered within the Public Premises Act which would practically close the issue in the proceedings as restored.;