B.D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises from the proceeding under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Upon notice issued to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act, it was pleaded that the petitioner was not in occupation of the plots mentioned therein except plot Nos. 200 -A and 203. The petitioner also contended that, in terms of the Government order dated 12th September, 1975, he was entitled to regularisation of his occupation over plot Nos. 200 -A and 203 aforementioned. The prescribed Authority directed eviction of the petitioner in respect of both these plots. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed in part and the application rejected in so far as plot No. 200 -A was concerned. The appeal was dismissed however, in regard to plot No. 203 measuring 16 Bighas 11 Biswas in area situate in village Chikarghat, Tehsil Sitarganj, district Nainital. For plot No. 200 -A the finding of the appellate Authority is that the same does not constitute public premises. Aggrieved against the decision in respect of plot No. 203, the petitioner has approached this court.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that it terms of the Government Order dated 12th of September, 1975 which is Annexure 1 to the petition, he is entitled to regularisation of his occupation over the plot in dispute. The argument is that the petitioner fulfils the requirement laid down in this Government order and the eviction could not be directed without the District Magistrate first considering whether his occupation stands regularised or that he is entitled to regularisation under this general directions. The contention raised also is that in plea of the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act having been extended to the area on July 1, 1969 the petitioner has attained the status of Asanli and on that account also he is not liable to eviction as an unauthorised occupant. Having heard learned counsel it appears clear that before eviction of the petitioner could be directed, his plea of regularisation in terms of the Government order dated 12th September, 1976 had to be taken into consideration. In case it is found that he does not fulfill the requirement thereunder or that it is not a case for otherwise for regularisation in keeping with the provisions thereof, then alone the question of his eviction as an unauthorised occupant may arise and it is in that event the petitioner may before the Prescribed Authority raise the plea of to having become asami on account of U.P. Act I of 1961 being applicable. As at present the eviction of the petitioner from plot No. 203 it appears, could not be directed straightaway without this vital question relating to his alleged title to the release being taken into account. For these reasons the petition succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. The order passed by the respondent No. 1 in so far as it relates to plot No. 203 is set aside. The case is sent back to the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, with a direction that the petitioner be not proceeded against in respect of plot No. 203 for so long as his claim to regularisation in terms of the Government order dated 12th of September, 1975 is not disposed off. The Prescribed authority may for this purpose bring the matter to the notice of the District Magistrate, Nainital. In case it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation, the Prescribed Authority shall proceed with the case taking into consideration the plea of the petitioner that he has acquired Asami rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the circumstances, costs shall be borne by the parties.;