A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition petitioner has assailed the validity of the proceedings started against him by the Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the Divisional Forest Officer Varanasi approached the Prescribed Authority under the Act on the assertion that the petitioner had illegally occupied a portion of land which has been declared under the Indian Forest Act to be a reserved forest area. THEreupon the Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the petitioner, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. THE petitioner filed objections against this notice and also adduced evidence. THE case of the petitioner was firstly that the disputed premises did not fall within the reserved forest area and secondly he was not an unauthorised occupant inasmuch as he was continuing in lawful possession over the premises for the last more than thirty years on the basis of patta. The Prescribed Authority over-ruled the objections of the petitioner and passed an order directing the eviction of the petitioner as well as payment of certain amounts by way of damages for use and occupation. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal but without any success.
(3.) THE petitioner is challenging the legality of the aforesaid two orders. THE petitioner contends that the entire proceedings started against the petitioner under the aforesaid Act are null and void as he was not served with a valid notice as required under section 4 of the Act as well as the Rules framed under the Act. THE petitioner also contends that the finding of the respondents. nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation over the premises in question is manifestly unsustainable in law. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the premises in question are within what has been declared to be reserved forest area under the Indian Forest Act and the petitioner's objections against the declaration of the area claiming that he was cultivating the disputed land from before 1966 were expressly rejected. The petitioner did not file any appeal against that order, consequently it is not open to the petitioner now to contend that the disputed premises do not form part of any reserved forest area. It is also mentioned that the petitioner made an attempt to claim the benefit of a Government Order dated 1-11-1975 mentioned in Clause (j) of para 3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents under which occupants of public premises were entitled under certain circumstance to have their possession regularised. That attempt of the petitioner failed as he was unable to satisfy the concerned authorities that he was entitled to the benefit of that Government Order.;