IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2511 of 2001. (Old CMWP No. 41346 of 1998) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Rishikesh, district Dehradun, through its Secretary. … Petitioner. Vs. II Additional District Judge, Dehradun and others. …Respondents. Sri J.C.Belwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ravi Babulkar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil K. Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Date November 27, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri J.C.Belwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Babulkar, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9-10-1998 passed by respondent no.1, whereby the appeal was allowed and thereby dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner filed a case under Section 4 of the Act alleging that respondent no. 3 and 4 have encroached upon the land of the Mandi Samiti, area 15 ft x 15 ft. situate at Hardwar Road, Rishikesh, district Dehradun and they may be evicted. According to the petitioner, the land was purchased by Mandi Samiti. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed their written statement and denied the allegation made in the application. The Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 24-12-1993 allowed the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent no. 3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Dehradun, which was ultimately heard by the II 2 Additional District Judge, Dehradun. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 9-10-1998 on the ground firstly that the land is an agricultural land and the provisions of the Act are not applicable and secondly, on the ground of notice under Section 4 of the Act being defective. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.C.Belwal, filed supplementary affidavit in the writ petition. Along with supplementary affidavit, Annexure SA-2, Khatauni 1399-1404 Fasli has been filed, wherein there is a reference of the order dated 17-4- 1993 passed by the Assistant Collector under Section 143 of the Z.A. and L.R.Act in respect of the land in dispute. The land was declared Abadi vide order dated 17-4-1993. The appeal was allowed on the ground that the disputed land is an agricultural land and this ground has now come to an end when the land was declared Abadi under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act by the Assistant Collector. According to the respondent, the order of the Assistant Collector was not placed either before the Prescribed Authority or the appellate court. The petitioner has not disputed this fact. So far as the Abadi land is concerned, the provisions of the Act would be applicable. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may proceed afresh against the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in accordance with law under the Act for their eviction and the respondents would be at liberty to contest the proceeding, if the proceeding is initiated. In that event, full opportunity shall be given to the respondents to file objection and to contest the proceeding. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall not be evicted except in due course of law. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3