T.S.DOABIA, J. - (1.)THIS petition has been preferred against an order passed by the Estate Officer, which order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority constituted under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act. 1971. The brief facts which have given rise to the present petition be noticed as under:
(2.)IT is pleaded that there was a co -operative society by the name of Southeastern Railway Men's Co -operative Stores Ltd., Bilaspur. The society was incorporated under the relevant co -operative society laws then in force. It is said that the above society was given a piece of land on licence. The duration of this licence is said to be about 100 years. This society went into liquidation. It is through this licences, the present petitioner claims the right to remain in possession. He submits that there was a proposal made by the Railway Administration for making a regular lease in his favour. But the record as it obtains today contains no order I mm the respondent Railway. The position before the Appellate Authority was no better. There is no approval of the railways brought on the record. The net result is that there is no letter of allotment and no written permission from the Railway Administration in favour of this present petitioner which may indicate that Railway Administration treated the present petitioner as an authorised occupant of its land. As such notice under section 4(1) of the aforementioned Act was issued. The Estate Officer came to the conclusion that an order of eviction is required to be passed against the petitioner. This order was accordingly passed. An appeal was preferred. This appeal came to be dismissed on 13th August 1985. Copy of this order has been placed on record, Annexure -1. It is this order which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition.
The case which is sought to be put across by the Writ Petitioner is that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. According to him the appeal could be decided by the District Judge and not be the Additional District Judge.

(3.)ON merits it is contended that the petitioner could not be treated as unauthorised occupant. He submits that he has been paying the licence fee and therefore he is an authorised occupant.