IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2047 of 2001 (M/S) (Old CMWP No. 19469 of 2000) Jugendra Singh S/O Shri Kartar Singh, R/O Village Ahmadnagar, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …… Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. through the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar and two others. … Respondent. Sri Atul Bansal, holding brief of Sri M.C.Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Date November 17, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner files amended memo of parties. The same is taken on record. Admit the writ petition. This writ petition has been preferred for issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 9-9-1999 and 31-3-1993 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively. By the order dated 31- 3-1993, the Prescribed Authority passed eviction order under Sections 4/5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 (for short the Act) against the petitioner. By the order dated 9-9-1999, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31-3-1993 was dismissed by the II Additional District Judge, Nainital. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that the Prescribed Authority/Additional S.D.M. Kashipur, Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar) issued a show cause 2 notice under Section 4(1) of the Act against the petitioner regarding his alleged encroachment over the public premises. The petitioner filed his objection challenging the validity of the notice. It was alleged that the land is an agricultural land and has been in cultivatory possession of the petitioner for the last 20-22 years. Evidence was led on behalf of both the parties. The learned Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties did not find favour with the petitioner and passed the order or eviction against him vide order dated 31-3-1993. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the II Additional District Judge Nainital. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 9-9-1999. Hence this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned orders. From a bare perusal of the judgment and order passed by the appellate court it is evident that the disputed land is an agricultural land. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the land in question is an agricultural land and cultivation was found by the Lekhpal concerned on the disputed land. 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 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 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 3 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 counsel for the State has fairly conceded the above fact. In the result, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside. This writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the two courts below are set aside. However, it is open to the State to proceed for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and others allied laws. The petitioner may also get his 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 he establishes his stand before the Revenue Court by leading evidence to that effect. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4