R.M.SAHAI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a transferee under a registered sale deed dated 3. 8. 1959 from one Amar Nath, filed an objection on 13. 6. 1975 against notice issued under section 4, of U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1972, for eviction as the petitioner was in illegal occupation of the land which was declared surplus of Amarnath under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act as far back as 1962. The objection was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority as the petitioner did not file any objection within time, after publication of notifica­tion u/s 14(3) of the Act. The order was affirmed in appeal. A supplemen­tary affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act but neither the Prescribed Authority nor the appellate court passed any order on it. The allegations have not been contravented.
(2.) AS regards the - objections to notice u/s 4 of the U, P. Public Premises Act, it was rightly held by the appellate court that mere mention of a wrong section or provision of the Act did not invalidate the proceeding so long it was issued by the Authority who had the jurisdiction to take proceedings for eviction. The factum of transfer before the prescribed date (20. 8. 59) and conse­quent mutation in the revenue records have not been found to be incorrect by the appellate authority or the Prescribed Authority nor is there any finding that the sale-deed suffered from any infirmity. But action u/s 14 (3) for taking possession is defended as the petitioner did not file any objection u/s 14 (3).
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit the respondents have curiously alleged that the sale-deed in favour of petitioner being after prescribed date, the prescribed authority rightly declared it to be surplus of Amarnath. This is contrary to the findings of the prescribed authority and the appellate authority as they have, in no unmistaken terms, found that the sale-deed is dated 3. 8. 1959 and petitioner's name was mutated.;