HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.284 of 2003 (M/S) {Old No.30679 of 1992} Akhtar Ali S/o Sri Bahadur Ali … Petitioner Versus District Judge and another …. Respondents Dated:- 28th July, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Tumul Nailwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned brief holder for the State. The proceedings under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1972’) was initiated against the petitioner for unauthorized occupation of a government land in Khasra No.162 in Khatima. Inspite of time being granted, the petitioner did not file any objection and, accordingly, the prescribed authority passed an order dated 23rd September, 1991 for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of being in unauthorised possession of a public land. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal, which was rejected by an order dated 28th May, 1992. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Act of 1972 was not applicable since the land in question was agricultural in nature and was recorded in the revenue records. Further, the petitioner was granted a lease on the basis of which he had occupied the land in question. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in as much as the court finds from a reading of paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the village Khatima, where the land was located, has come within the municipal limits of the municipal board. In view of this assertion, the provisions of the Act, 1972 would squarely become applicable to the land in question. Further, the court finds that the alleged lease executed in favour of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration in a writ jurisdiction since such averments would not brought before the court below. Consequently, the court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. In the event, the petitioner is in occupation and contends that he is in possession of the land on the basis of a lease deed, it would be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the authority concerned for the regularisation of his possession. If such an application is filed, it would be considered in accordance with law. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 28.07.2010 LSR