IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1258 of 2007 (M/S) (Old No. 24470 of 1995) 1. Sukh Chain Singh S/O Bhagat Singh R/O Village Faridpur, Tehsil Bazpur, District Nainital. 2. Baldeo Singh S/O Shri Pooran Singh, R/O Faridpur, Tehsil Bazpur, Distt. Nainital. …… Petitioners. Versus 1. State of U.P. through the Collector. Nainital. 2. First Additional District Judge, Nainital. 3. Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Kashipur, District Nainital. … Respondents. WITH Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2007 (M/S) (Old No. 24476 of 1995) Baldeo Singh S/O Shri Pooran Singh, R/O Faridpur, Tehsil Bazpur, Distt. Nainital. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. State of U.P. through the Collector. Nainital. 2. First Additional District Judge, Nainital. 3. Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Kashipur, District Nainital. … Respondents. Mr. B.S.Parihar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the State-respondents. Date October 20, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J.(Oral) Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common order. 2 By means of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1258 of 2007 the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 17-5-1005 passed by the respondent no.2 in appeal upholding the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 31- 1-1994, whereby eviction of the petitioners has been ordered from the land in question. By means of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1257 of 2007, the petitioner Baldeo Singh has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-1-1994, passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the order dated 17-5-1993 passed by the respondent no.2 in appeal, whereby the order of eviction passed against the petitioner has been upheld by the appellate Court. According to the petitioners, the petitioner are tenure holders of the disputed land as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the memo of writ petitions and the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are applicable in the area where the land of the petitioner is situate. Proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) were initiated against the petitioners and Eviction Case No. 22/181 of 1991-92 and Eviction Case No. 181 of 1990-91 were registered against the petitioners. A show cause notice was issued to them by the Prescribed Authority against the petitioners in each case. They filed objection in each and questioned the notice as illegal. It was asserted that the disputed land is not public utility land. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Petitioner Baldeo Singh in his oral statement recorded before the Prescribed Authority had specifically stated that he is in possession over the disputed land and he had sown crop over the land in dispute, which is standing thereon. The learned Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence of the parties has held that the petitioners are unauthorised 3 occupants over the disputed land and by its order dated 31-1-94 orders the petitioners to vacate the disputed land within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the order. Aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-1994, the petitioners preferred separate appeals bearing Eviction Appeal No. 79 of 1994, Sukhchain Singh and another Vs. State and Eviction Appeal No. 78 of 1994, Baldeo Singh Vs. State of U.P., which were heard by the I Additional District Judge, Nainital. The appellate court also did not find favour with the appellant-petitioner and ultimately dismissed both the appeals by separate judgment and order dated 17-5-1995, which gave rise to the present writ petitions. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the disputed land is an agricultural land and the petitioners had stated in their objection that the disputed land is not a public utility land and that as per orders of the State Government, the petitioners have already deposited the rent etc. for regularisation of the land and the matter is pending for consideration before the Collector, Nainital. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the controversy involved in both these writ petitions is identical to that of the controversy involved in WPMS No. 3235 of 2001 Krishna Kant Vs. I Additional District Judge, Nainital and that these writ petitions may also be allowed in terms of order dated 25- 5-2006 passed in that writ petition. This Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3235 of 2001 Krishna Kant Vs. I Additional District Judge, Nainital, while deciding as many as 42 writ petition by a common order dated 25- 5-2006 has observed that “the land in dispute is covered by the definition as given in Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, it can be safely concluded without any hesitation that the petitioners are the tenure-holders of the 4 agricultural land for the time being, therefore, the proceedings drawn by the Prescribed Authority concerned under the provisions of the U.P. Public Premises Act ( Act No. XXII of 1972) against the petitioners were without jurisdiction and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.” It was left open to the State to proceed for eviction of the petitioners from the land in dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Z.A. and L.R. Act and KUZA Act and other allied laws. The facts of the case at hand are identical to the facts of the aforesaid writ petitions. Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State has fairly conceded to the above fact. In the result, both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Both the writ petition are allowed in terms of order dated 25-5-2006 passed in WPMS 3235 of 2001 Krishna Kant Vs. I Additional District Judge, Nainital. No order as to costs. The impugned orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Prescribed Authority are set aside. However, it is open to the State to proceed for eviction of the petitioners from the disputed land in accordance with the provisions of the Z.A. & L.R. Act and other allied laws. The petitioners may also get their title declared by filing suit under Section 229-B of the Z.A. & L.R. Act and KUZA Act, as the case may be, provided they establish their stand before the Revenue Court by leading evidence to that effect. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP