HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No. 4211 of 2008 Restoration Application No. 780 of 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 672 (MS) OF 2001 (Old No. 13903 of 1995) Raja Ram Gupta ……….Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others. ……….Respondents. Mr Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding the brief of Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the respondent. 14.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding the brief of Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 2. Perused the grounds shown for delay in filing the restoration application. I find sufficient reason in order to condone the delay. Order dated 6.9.2007 is recalled. 3. Both the applications are allowed. 4. Writ petition is restored to its original number. 5. Both the parties have agreed for deciding the petition at admission stage. However, the same is being decided at the admission stage. 6. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3.11.1989 passed by the Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, order dated 10.6.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority and order dated 11.7.1994 passed by the appellate Court (Annexure Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to the writ petition respectively), whereby the petitioner has been directed to be evicted from the land in dispute treating him to be unauthorized occupant. 7. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner claims his title over the land in dispute and he is not an unauthorized occupant. 8. In my view, the question of title cannot be decided under U.P. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant Act, therefore, the petitioner is relegated to file the civil Suit to get his title declared before the Competent Court within a period of three months. If such a suit is filed, the Competent Court shall decide the same within a period of next three months from the date of its filing. The petitioner shall not be evicted for a period of six months from the land in dispute. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 14.7.2008 Rathour