IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (MS) NO. 1714 OF 2010 Dhyan Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ….Respondents. Present : Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Date of Decision : 30.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority and order dated 5.5.2003 passed by the District Judge, Chamoli, whereby the petitioner has been directed to be evicted from the property in dispute. 3. The petitioner was given a notice under Section 4 (1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Prescribed Authority, and subsequently, on 21.7.2000 a reply to the said notice was given by the petitioner. In the reply given by the petitioner, he has nowhere specifically stated that the land in question is not a public premises. Consequently, the Prescribed Authority on 19.10.2001 passed an eviction order against the petitioner holding that the land presently in occupation of the petitioner, which is 10 Nali 11 Mutthi is a Panchayat Bhumi and the petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied the same. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the District Judge, Chamoli being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2001, which was also dismissed on 5.5.2003. Now the petitioner has filed this writ petition reiterating the same facts, what he had stated before the Courts below. It is an admitted fact that the land in question is a public premises. The only contention of the petitioner is that the notice was not in accordance with provision of Section 4 of the Act. Here the petitioner contends that the notice does not state as to for how long the petitioner is in 2 unauthorised occupation of the property and secondly, it does not state as to what is the area in authorised occupation of the petitioner. 4. This Court has examined Section 4 of the Act as well as Form – A, which is appended to the Public Premises Rules. Neither Section 4 of the Act, nor the appended Rules or Form A makes it a requirement where the total area of the premises has also to be stated in the notice. Moreover, for how long the premises is in the unauthorised occupation, the petitioner himself has stated that he is in possession of the land in question for the last “fifty” years. This Court, therefore, finds no anomaly in the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Court. 5. The instant writ petition is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Magistrate, Chamoli for effective compliance of the order of the Prescribed Authority. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 30.9.2010 Rathour