A.B. Srivastava, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner had sought quashing of an order dated 7.5.1977 of the Prescribed Authority under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing eviction of the petitioner from a piece of land, measuring 794 sq. ft, claimed by the respondent No. 3 Nagar Palika, Aligarh to be public premises, and appellate order dated 18.11.1978 of the Additional District Judge, Aligarh confirming the same in appeal. The proceedings before the Prescribed Authority were initiated on an application moved by the Nagar Palika, Aligarh with the allegation that the State Government is the owner of the public land described as plot No. 98 in the survey sheet in Mohalla Katra Shahid Khan, Aligarh, which is under the management of the respondent Nagar Palika. The petitioner (opposite party before the Prescribed Authority), it was alleged, has in December, 1955 entered into unauthorised occupation of 794 sq. ft. area in the said plot measuring 31' 9" x 24' plus 26'/2 as shown in the survey map attached to the application. The petitioner, it was alleged, has without the permission or sanction of the Nagar Palika constructed his house over the land in question. A notice dated 24.6.1969 under Section 186 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 was served on the petitioner on 26.6.1969 but the same was not complied. Besides eviction damages @ Rs. 90/ - per annum was also sought.
(2.) THE petitioner in his written statement before the Prescribed Authority pleaded that the proceeding is barred by limitation because he is in possession over the land in question since more than 80 years. It is also barred by res -judicata as an earlier suit filed by the Nagar Palika against the petitioner's brother in respect of the same land was dismissed by a Magistrate on 30.11.1951 and the revision filed by the Nagar Palika before the District Judge was also dismissed, the disputed construction on the land in question was alleged to have been made with sanction of a plan by the Nagar Palika on 6.3.1956. The proceedings were also stated to be incompetent because it was earlier instituted before the S.D.M. in the year 1970 but Act 13 of 1959 under which the same was initiated and the Amending Act of 1970 was declared illegal and unconstitutional, and the proceeding could not be revived under 'the Act'. The Prescribed Authority before whom the parties entered into evidence, came to the conclusion that in 1948 a prosecution had been launched against the brother of the petitioner for constructing without getting plan sanctioned, but the same failed for lack of evidence and defective notice. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a plan for construction on 16.9.1955 and got it sanctioned on 16.3.1956. The construction had been completed in December, 1955 and seeking sanction was an attempt to get the construction activity started in 1948 regularised. The Prescribed Authority further held the sanction of plan did not change the nature of the land which was 'nazul' land, and thus public premises. The petitioner was liable to be evicted. He accordingly directed the petitioner to remove his possession over the disputed land within 60 days failing which the same was to be done by execution of the order.
(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge in appeal held that the proceeding under the Act was maintainable and jurisdiction of any other court or authority was barred under Section 15 of the Act. There was no question of bar of res -judicata on account of failure of the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner's brother Ram Prasad, sanction of plan under Section 186 of the U.P. Municipalities Act is no bar to the present proceeding, there was no reason to doubt the location of the disputed construction vis   -vis the plot claimed as public premises by the Nagar Palika. Affirming the finding of the Prescribed Authority regarding the construction in question being an encroachment on the public premises, he dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, this petition.;