Ajay Prakash Misra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment passed by respondent No. 1 and 2, dated 24th October, 1975 and 20th June, 1975. The dispute relates to plot No. 443 measuring 14, 16 acres situate in village Lamaura, Pargana Charkhari, district Hamirpur. It is alleged that on that report of the Lekhpal the proceedings under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated against the petitioners by issuing them a notice as to why should they be not ejected from the disputed land. According to the notice the said land belonged to Sri Kesar Singh and under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 the said was declared as surplus land. The name of the petitioner was wrongly recorded on the disputed plot as Bhumidhar since 1362F. The petitioners filed objection. According to the case of the petitioners the said land was purchased by them by means of a registered sale deed dated 11th February, 1958 which was executed by the said Kesar Singh and in pursuance thereof their names were situate in the revenue records. According to the petitioners' case they are in possession of the said Bhumidhari land thereafter.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2, however, by means of his judgment dated 20th June, 1975 rejected the objection of the petitioners and ordered that they would be ejected from the said plot. The case of the petitioners is that because of their reaching late in the court, they could not file certain essential documents in the case before the prescribed authority which they did before the lower appellate court. They filed the copies of Khatauni of 1366F, 1380F to 1382F, wherein their names were recorded as Bhumidhar and also filed the certified copy of the registered sale deed. They also filed Khasra extract from 1368F upto the relevant years when they filed those documents. The lower appellate court also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners of a judgment dated 15th October, 1975 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition). The appellate court held that the documents filed by the petitioners are inadmissible and further that since the petitioners did not file any objection under Section 14(3) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, hence their rights and title got extinguished and even though their names are recorded in the village record and the fact that they are in long possession and are paying the land revenue, the same will be of no avail. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid two judgments have filed the present writ petition. The petitioner's main contention is that the land in question is not covered by the word 'Premises' under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Admittedly the land which is recorded as Bhumidhari land is not being disputed by the respondents. In fact, in the appellate court's judgment it is admitted that this land was declared as surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. In support of this the petitioner's counsel relied on the case of Sidharath Singh v. The District Judge and others, 1980 A.L.J. No. O.C. 7. In that case it was held that where a notice under Section 4 of the 1972 Act was issued treating the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant on the ground that the said land had already been declared as surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, such notice could not be sustained. It was also held in that case that since in the Ceiling Act clear provision has been made for eviction such a person from the surplus land, then no resort could be had by issue of a notice under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1972. The facts in the present case are identical to the facts of that case In that case it was further held that such land would not fall within the definition of word 'premises' as defined under Section 2(b)(ii) thereof.
(3.) ANOTHER decision which has relevance to the present case has also been relied on by the petitioners 'counsel i.e. Baldeo Raj v. State of U.P. and others, 1984 A.L.J. 872. In this case also the question arose as to the meaning of word premises' under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. On similar facts as in the present case it was held that since under the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act under Section 129B there is power to evict such a person, then in such contingency the resort cannot be taken for proceedings to evict the person under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.;