B. D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THESE petitions are being disposed of by common judgment since they give rise to common questions of facts and law.
(2.) PROCEEDING was initiated against the petitioners by notices purporting to be under section 4 (1) of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In writ petition no. 602 of 1979, the notice was with respect to plot no. 223/2 covering an area of 10 bighas. In the other petition the notice related to plot no. 217/2 having an area of 18 bighas. The allegations were that the petitioners had stepped in occupation over these plots without authority and hence they were liable to eviction. Objections were filed by the petitioners in both the cases contending inter alia that the land was not "public premises" within the meaning of the Act and therefore, recourse could not be had to section 4 thereof to evict them. The objections did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority which passed the order dated July 17, 1978 in both the cases under section 5 (1) of the Act directing eviction of the petitioners from the said land. The petitioners preferred appeals in both the cases as provided under section 9 of the Act, but the same were dismissed by the appellate authority on October 18, 1978. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in view of the definition given to the expression "public premises" in the Act, the Prescribed Authority did not have the jurisdiction to direct the eviction of the petitioners in proceedings initiated under this Act. The argument advanced is that upon the averments contained in the notice itself, and as set up by the opposite parties before the authorities below, it would appear that the land is covered under the provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act and, therefore, the recourse, if any, to evict the petitioners could be had under the provision thereof. The expression 'public premises' in section 2 (e) of the Act was amended by the U. P. Act 28 of 1976. The definition as amended excludes "land vested in or entrusted to the management of a Oaon Sabha or any other local authority under any law relating to land tenures." This is so specified in clause (i) of the definition appearing in section 2 (e) of the Act. In view of the provision contained in sections 4/6 of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950, the right, title or interest of the intermediaries came to be vested in the State and the State thereby also acquired right, title or interest over the land held as 'Talab' or 'Jheel'. Section 117 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act makes it clear that the superintendence, management and control of such land is vested in the Gaon Sabha. The State Government is empowered also thereunder to transfer this superintendence, management or control from the Gaon Sabha to some other local authority or vice versa. In the extract of Khatauni in 1383-85 Fasli relied for the respondent, the land in question is shown as recorded 'talab'/'Jheel. The extract of Khasra of 1386 Fasli is also referred to in this behalf. The appellate authority has, in fact, treated this land as pertaining to 'talab'/'Jheel'. The petitioners are recorded in the Khasra of 1386 Fasli under class 4. Reference to the U. P. Land Records Manual shows that this class is meant to denote land held as occupier without title when there is no one already recorded in column 4 of the Khasra. Law relating to tenures, namely that contained in the UP ZA and LR Act makes ample provision for eviction against those who are alleged to have stepped in unauthorised occupation over such land. Section 122-B for instance entitled the Gaon Sabha to evict such person on proceeding being initiated as envisaged therein. In order to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction arising between the powers conferred under that Act and the power under the Act, referred to above, the definition given to the expression 'public premises' has deliberately excluded from its purview land vesting in the Gaon Sabha or some other local authority for which provision exists in the law relating to land tenures.
(3.) FROM the discussion made in the above, it follows that the Prescribed Authority acted without jurisdiction in proceeding under the Act and directing the eviction of the petitioners on the basis thereof. The lower appellate court has overlooked that in the objections filed particularly in paragraph 7 thereof a plea was specifically raised to the effect that the land could not be classed as 'public premises' within the meaning of the Act and that eviction, if at all, had to be proceeded with under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petitions accordingly succeed. The order dated 17-7-1978 made by the Prescribed Authority and the decision of the Appellate Authority dated 18-10-1978 are quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.;