S.K. Keshote, J. - (1.) TO remove the encroachment made over Khasra No. 87 on the National High Way No. 24 (Delhi -Bareilly) on an area 4 x 9.5 metres by the petitioner the Prescribed Authority, National High Way Construction Division, P.W.D. Bareilly initiated proceedings against him under Sec. 4 of the U.P. Public Premises' (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation Act) 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1972). The Prescribed Authority decided the matter on 30.8.79. The petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the disputed land. It has further been ordered that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 15,048/ - to P.W.D. by way of damages. This order of the Prescribed Authority was affirmed by the IInd Add). District Judge, Rainpur on appeal filed by the petitioner vide its judgment dated 21.7.1980. It appears that the petitioner did not pay to the department the amount of damages as ordered by the Prescribed Authority and as such the matter has been to concerned authorities for the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue. The Tehsildar concerned attached the immovable agricultural land comprising in Khatauni No. 188, Khata No. 315 situated at village Dhamora of the petitioner on 6.3.84. The petitioner having the apprehension that his attached property is likely to be sold by the Tehsildar concerned filed this writ petition before this Court on 2.4.83 in which he has challenged the orders dated 30.8.79, 31.7.80, citation dated 16.1.84 and order of attachment dated 6.3.84. On 3.4.84 when this writ petition has come for hearing for admission the petitioner was directed by this Court to file the documents, namely copy of the notice given to him under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act 1972 and the memo. of appeal which was filed by him against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.8.79 alongwith a supplementary affidavit. The petitioner in compliance of the Court's order dated 3.4.84 filed supplementary affidavit on 18.4.84 and two documents, namely Annexure SA -1, copy of notice under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, 1972 and Annexure SA -2 copy of memo. of appeal dated 4.10.79. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 contested the petition by filing counter -affidavit. The petitioner filed a rejoinder -affidavit to the counter -affidavit.
(2.) SHRI B.O. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submitted that recovery proceedings as well as order of attachment of the property in pursuance thereof are non -est as the petitioner was not given any notice under Sec. 7 of the Act, 1972. He next submitted that even when the proceedings under Sec. 4 of the Act 1972 were started against the petitioner he was not given any notice under Sec. 7 of the said Act for damages and as such the orders of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority to that effect are without jurisdiction. He has also challenged the orders dated 30.8.79 and 31.7.80 on merits. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions reported in : 1988 All Civil Judgments 595,, 1984 (2) All Rent Cases 502 and, 1981 All Rent Cases 92. The learned Standing Counsel in reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was given a notice under Sec. 7 of the Act 1972. He next argued that the Prescribed Authority determined damages and in the appeal filed against the said order the petitioner did not raise any such objection. His objection was only to the quantum of the damages. The petitioner did not challenge the orders of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority initially but when his property was attached white questioning the citation and attachment those orders have also been challenged. The writ petition against the order of Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority is highly belated and same deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(3.) I have considered the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties.;