HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1139 of 2002 (M/S) {Old No.32597 of 1992} Sri Diwan Singh (deceased) S/o Chatur Singh (heirs incorporated) … Petitioner Versus State and others …. Respondents Dated:- 29th July, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. K. N. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. C. Arya, the learned brief holder for the State. A notice under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) was issued to the petitioner Diwan Singh to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the unauthorised occupation of a land belonging to the State Government located in the village Supi in plot No.5325 having an area of 20 nalies. The petitioner objected to the issuance of the said notice alleging that it was wholly illegal and was not accordance with the provision contemplated in Section 4 of the Act. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 20.07.1991 directing the eviction of the petitioner from the plot in dispute. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal and submitted that he had filed an application for regularisation of the land in question and till the disposal of the said application for regularisation, he should not be evicted from the premises in question. The District Judge agreed with the submission of the petitioner and passed an order dated 09th March, 1989 directing the authority to consider the petitioner’s application for regularisation on the said plot and kept the proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the application for regularisation. Thereafter, the competent authority passed an order rejecting the application of the petitioner for regularisation of his possession on the ground that land in question is a public utility land and, on such land, the possession of the petitioner cannot be regularized. Based on the aforesaid order, the appeal was consequently dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner made two submissions, namely, that the notice issued under Section 4 of the Act did not give the necessary grounds for eviction and, consequently, the said notice was invalid and the entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the said notice was wholly illegal and void and the petitioner could not be evicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission placed reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bikarama Vs. 4th Additional District Judge, Varanasi & others 1984 (2) A.R.C. 241. It was further submitted that inspite of the rejection of the petitioner’s application for regularization, the petitioner’s application for regularisation should have been considered under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision dated 05th April, 1985 passed in Writ Petition No.6299 of 1981 Sardool Singh Vs. the Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital & another, a copy of which is annexed as annexure-9 to the writ petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court finds that the notice issued to the petitioner indicates the grounds of eviction, namely, that the land in question belongs to the State government and that the land had not been allotted to the petitioner nor is the petitioner a bhumidhar or a sirdar in the 3 land in question. In my opinion, the essential ingredients specified in Section 4 of the Act have been clearly made out by the competent authority and, the reasons and the grounds for eviction has been clearly indicated in the notice. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect cannot be accepted. With regard to the question, namely, that the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act should be considered by the competent authority and that the possession should be regularized under the said Act, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the State indicating that the plot in question has been indicated in the Khatauni as a railway, road, etc. and is being used for a public purpose. Consequently, in view of Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, bhumidhari rights cannot accrue on the land in question. Consequently, the contention of the petitioner that the land should be regularized in favour of the petitioner on account of adverse possession under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act also cannot be accepted. In the light of the aforesaid, this court does not find any error in the orders passed by the courts below. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 29.07.2010 LSR