Mam Chandra Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order of eviction dated 28.12.1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of five muthis land of Khata No. 54 plot No. 26 and Khata No. 150 plot No. 27 situate, in village Lohaghat, Tehsil Champawat, District Pithoragarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh and an order dated 21.5.1990 passed by the District Judge, Pithoragarh whereby the petitioner's Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1990 against the aforementioned order has been dismissed. Counter affidavit has been filed. I have heard Sri G.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.S. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has admittedly constructed a house on the disputed land having allegedly acquired the same from one Dhanpal. He was proceeded against by the State under the aforesaid Act on the ground that the property belonged to the State and the possession of the petitioner was unauthorised. The Prescribed Authority ordered the eviction holding that the property on which he had constructed the house belonged to the State and the petitioner's appeal as aforesaid has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the statement of the prosecution witness, namely, Puran Singh, Patwari of the area who had been examined in support of the State case. A copy of that statement has been placed as Annexure '2' to the writ petition which shows that the disputed land was part of the bigger area recorded as Khata No. 54 plot No. 26 and Khata No. 150 plot No. 27 which was Nazul land and was leased out to one Dhanpal. It was stated that the term of the lease in favour of Dhanpal has expired about 20 years ago but the lessee/his heirs are continuing in possession of the demised land and the name of Dhanpal is still recorded in village khatauni. Patwari also admitted that in the settlement records the name of State of U.P. was not recorded as the owner of the land and it was the name Dhanpal that was recorded there and in the remarks column he has himself recorded the name of State of U.P. without any superior authority's order. These facts that have come in the statement of Puran Singh Patwari have not been looked into by the authorities below. Thus, Dhanpal the lessee appeared to be holding over the demised premises and the status of the petitioner was that of a transferee or licensee from Dhanpal. Therefore, without impleading Dhanpal and finding out what right, if any, he had in the property in question the eviction of the petitioner could not be ordered.
(3.) SECTION 4(2)(b) of the Act requires notice to be served on all persons who may be in occupation of, or claim interest in the public premises and it was necessary in the present case to issue notice to the said Dhanpal or his successor in -interest. For the above reasons, the order of eviction cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed and the eviction order dated 28.12.1989 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above.;