Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nazar Bokhari for the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 4 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 in Case No. 20 of 1984 P.S- Kotwali, District-Rampur dated 7th May, 1984. whereby the prescribed authority after hearing the petitioner and State has passed the order of eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, which is admittedly a public premises. In appeal the appellate authority affirmed the findings of the prescribed authority and directed for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a perusal of Section 4 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 provides that the notice in the manner prescribed should have been served on the petitioner before the proceedings are initiated. Section 4 is reproduced below:- "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 unauthorised 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 public 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 public 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."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1984 All. L.J. page 1022; Bikarama Versus IV Additional District Judge. Varanasi and others. Para 7 and 8 on which learned counsel has placed reliance are quoted below: "7. LEARNED counsel appearing for the State of U.P. before the Courts below fairly conceded that the impugned notice issued under S. 4 of the Act was not a valid notice and was not in the prescribed form as it did not disclose the ground upon which it has been issued. Before us however, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the notice, if read as a whole, clearly confirmed to the requirements of S. 4 of the Act. 8. We do not agree. The notice has been quoted above and it is obvious that a vital requirement of S. 4 is missing. The notice does not profess, directly or indirectly, to state the ground upon which the eviction of the petitioner is V being sought. In our opinion the provisions of S. 4 are mandatory and a valid notice specifying the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made is sine qua non for an order of eviction. We do not agree with the learned Standing Counsel that the notice if read as a whole can be construed to be a valid notice under S. 4 of the Act. It does not disclose the grounds on which eviction is sought. It is not in the prescribed form either. The defects invalidate the notice ab initio.";