K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been directed against the judgment of Shri A.B. Mathur, District Judge, Nainital, dated 20.4.1977 in Eviction Appeal No. 332 of 1975 Ramgarh Farm and Industries Ltd., Kashipur, District Nainital v. State of U.P. and another. It appears that Eviction case No. 148 of 1972 -73 State of U.P. v. Escorts Farms Ramgarh and Industries Ltd., Kashipur, District Nainital was started under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. It has been alleged that notice under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act was served upon the opposite party mentioned in the above noted Eviction case. The present petitioner being in actual possession over the disputed land had contested the claim of State of U.P. and had asserted that the petitioner had become sirdar of the disputed land and that his possession was not unauthorised, therefore, the proceeding should be dropped. The prescribed authority through its order dated 16.12.1974 passed the following order: - - Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under sub -section (1) of Section 5 of the U.P. P.P. (E.U.D.). Act, 1972, I hereby order the said O. Ps. as well as others who are in occupation of the said public premises or any part thereof to vacate the said public premises within thirty days of the publication of this order. In the event of refusal or failure to comply with this order within the period specified above, the said O.P. and all other persons concerned are liable to be evicted from the said public premises if need be by the use of such force as may be necessary. (Emphasis is mine).
(2.) AGAINST the judgment of the prescribed authority the petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate court through its order dated 20.4.1977. Against the judgment of the appellate court the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the appellate court has patently erred in holding that the appeal at the instance of the petitioner was not a competent appeal and therefore, the same has been rejected.
(3.) SECOND contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the subordinate authorities have patently erred in holding the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land as unauthorised.;