IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 427 of 2007 (M/S) Aitwaru Lal and others ..… Petitioners Versus State and others ..… Respondents Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the respondents/State. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. On the basis of the report of the Patwari dated 30th January, 1986, proceedings u/S 4 and 5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1972 was initiated. Notice was issued to the petitioners to show cause why they should not be evicted from plot Nos. 496 and 497 which was unauthorizedly occupied by them. The petitioners filed their objection stating therein that they have been in possession on the aforesaid plot from the time of their forefathers and have acquired bhumidari rights and that they have not raised any unauthorized construction. The petitioners, in the alternate, also contended that the land is sanjayat land and, therefore, the Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 comes into play and that no notice under the Pubic Premises Act could be issued since the land is not a “public premises”. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the material evidence on record and, after considering the evidence of the Kanoongo found that the land, even though, is recorded as a banjar land, nonetheless, it belongs to the State Govt. and that the petitioners were unauthorisedly raising constructions. The Prescribed Authority also found that no proof had been given to indicate that the land was sanjayat land nor any prove was filed that the petitioners or their forefathers were in continuous possession. The Prescribed Authority, accordingly, directed eviction of the petitioners from the plot in question. 2 The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which also met with the same fate. The petitioners have, thereafter, filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the notice u/S 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act was invalid and that the mandatory ingredients were not mentioned in the notice and, on this basis, the entire proceedings was liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the land in any case was sanjayat land and that the petitioners and their forefather were in possession and that the land was not covered under the Public Premises Act and that the provisions of KUJA Act was applicable. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that since the KUJA Act was applicable, the proceedings for eviction u/S 4 and 5 of the Act could not be issued. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the Government Order dated 16th February, 1981, the petitioners were entitled to be given the benefit of said G.O. and that assuming that they had unauthorisedly occupied the government land, their occupation was liable to be regularized. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and, having perused the evidence of the Kanoongo and, upon a consideration of the entire material placed on record, the Court finds that concurrent findings have been given that the land belongs to the State Govt. There is no documentary evidence on record to suggest that the land comes under the KUJA Act and that the U.P. Public Premises Act is not applicable. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the contention of the petitioners that the Act of 1972 was not applicable cannot be accepted. The contention of the petitioners that the notice issued under Section 4 and 5 of the Act is invalid and is also patently erroneous, in as much as, no such objection was raised by the petitioners before the Prescribed authority nor the notice has been filed before this Court. 3 The Court further finds that no proof has been filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioners and their forefathers were in possession and that it was a sanjayat land. In the absence of any proof being filed, the Court below was justified in rejecting the contention of the petitioners. In view of the concurrent finding of fact, this Court finds that the orders of the Authority below does not suffer from any error of law. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in the event the petitioners is entitled to regularise his unauthorized occupation as per the government orders issued from time to time, it would be open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for the regularization of his unauthorized occupation on the land in question before the authority concerned. If such an application is moved, the authority will consider and pass appropriate orders. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 4th January, 2011 Shiv 4