K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972).
(2.) NECESSARY facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that it has been alleged that about 247 sq. ft. land situate in Mohalla Kucha Langar Khana Nazul land of the Municipality Rampur was in unauthorised occupation of Yasin (the present Petitioner), hence he was liable to ejectment and also liable to pay damages from 18 -12 -75. It appears that the disputed land was allotted to Yasin on 6 -8 -1975 for one year. The allotment was not finally approved, hence it was alleged that the cancellation of the allotment was served upon Yasin, Petitioner and his occupation of the disputed land became unauthorised in the aforesaid circumstances from 18 -12 -1975. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner after serving notice upon him contemplated by Section 4 of the U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972. The Petitioner filed objection and denied the allegations against him and justified his occupation over the disputed land. On the basis of the claim and the counter claim the Prescribed Authority framed issues on 12 -7 -1976 and gave judgment against the Petitioner as is evident from the judgment dated 30 -9 -1980 contained in Annexure '1' attached with the writ petition. Against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority the Petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate court through Its judgment dated 2 -7 -1981 contained in Annexure '2' (though not marked as Annexure '2') and is attached with the writ petition. A certified copy of the judgment of the appellate court is also attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the subordinate authorities the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended before me that the proceedings against the Petitioner were wholly void and they should be quashed. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner no notice contemplated by Section 4 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 was served upon the Petitioner, hence the proceeding Is void and In pursuance of such proceedings the Petitioner could not be evicted from the disputed land. In this connection the learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to the provisions of Section 4 read with Rule 3 and the forms appended to the back under the aforesaid Rule framed under the provisions of Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972.;