IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition 5005 of 2001 (M/S) Sateshwar Prasad Sati S/o Jai Datt Sati ..……… Petitioner. Versus State and others ……… Respondents Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. The petitioner is an occupation of some land in village Deo- Asthan, Patti Pokhari, District Chamoli. It is alleged that he applied for the regularization of his unauthorized possession before the authority concerned. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, a notice u/S 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 dated 08/05/1980 was issued alleging that since the petitioner is an unauthorized occupation, the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the premises in question. The petitioner appeared and filed his objections. The Prescribed Authority by an order dated 15th October, 1980 passed an order of eviction. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed by an order dated 22nd May, 1981. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said orders, has filed the present writ petition. The only ground urged before this court is, that the notice did not contemplate the grounds on which the petitioner was being evicted and such grounds were required to be mentioned in the notice u/S 4 of the Act. A copy of the said notice has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. Upon a perusal of such 2 notice, one finds that no grounds has been mentioned in the said notice. The question which arises for consideration is whether such grounds are required to be mentioned in the notice or not ? For facility, the provision of Section 4 of the Act is extracted hereunder:- “4. Issue of notice to show-cause against order of eviction. – (1) If the prescribed authority, either of its own motion or on an application or report received on behalf of the State Government or the corporate authority, is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the prescribed authority shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show-cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) The notice shall, - (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons, who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the pubic premises, to show- cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3) The prescribed authority shall cause the notice to be served either personally on all those persons concerned or by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises and in any other manner, provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (4) Where the prescribed authority knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the pubic premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by registered post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that the notice issued u/S 4 shall specify the grounds on which the order of 3 eviction is proposed to be made. Section 2 (g) of the Act defines unauthorized occupant which is extracted hereunder:- “(g) “unauthorized occupation”, in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which are the capacity in which he was allowed to hold or occupy the premises had expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever, and also includes continuance in occupation in the circumstances specified in sub-section (1) of Section 7, and a person shall not, merely by reason of the fact that he had paid any amount as rent, be deemed to be in authorize occupation.” A perusal of Section 2 (g) of the Act indicates that unauthorized occupation can be of a public premises on various grounds. Section 2 (g) of the Act includes various kinds of person as unauthorized occupants within its folds. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bikarama Vs. IVth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1984, AWC 546 has held that the provision of Section 4 are mandatory and that a valid notice specifying the ground in which the order of eviction is proposed to be made is sine quo non for an order of eviction. Similarly, in Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Vs. 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge and others, 1981 AWC 12, it was held that non compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 4 of the Act, namely, non mentioning of the grounds for eviction will not cure the defect where the occupant appears and files his reply to the notice. The court held that it was mandatory that the grounds are required to be mentioned in the notice u/S 4 of the Act and, in the absence of the ground being mentioned, no proceedings could be initiated for eviction or for recovery of the damages. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the mandatory requirement of the grounds of eviction having not been 4 mentioned in the notice, the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1972 was wholly invalid. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate authority cannot be sustained and are quashed. The impugned notice issued u/S 4 of the Act dated 08/05/1980 being against the mandatory provision of Section 4 of the Act, being invalid, is also quashed. The writ petition is allowed. It would be open to the respondents to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 20.07.2010 Shiv