IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1690 OF 2001 (M/S) Raghuvir Nath ………………Petitioner. Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh …………...Respondent. 21.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Heard Sri Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 24.03.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, and order dated 1.12.1998 passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1998 Raghuvir Nath Vs. The State of U.P. 3. Eviction Appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 24.3.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Tehri in Land Revenue Case No. 30 of 1996-97 under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 4(i) of the Act, requiring him to show cause as to why he be not evicted from the disputed land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings relating to agricultural land could not have been initiated under the Uttar Pradesh (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act. If the petitioner was unauthorized occupant on any agricultural land belonging to State, the proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 could be drawn against him, as the land held by a tenure holder for the time being is not a public premises. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present case is fully covered by the judgment dated 26th April 2002 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 176 (M/S) of 2001 reported in [2002 E.L.C. 508 (HC)] Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, where this Court has observed as under: “8. Hence, the proceedings could only be drawn under U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and could not have been drawn under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. Thus, the proceedings initiated under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, which gave rise to these writ petitions, were without jurisdiction. 9. In view of above, all the three writ petitions are allowed. The judgment passed by Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority is hereby quashed in all the three writ petitions. However, it is open for the State to evict the petitioners from the disputed land in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. It is also open for the petitioners to get their title declared by filing a suit under Section 229-B of U.p. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act as they claimed in response to the notice issued under Section 4(i) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, that they are the allottee of the land by lease. No order as to costs.” 6. Perused the aforesaid judgment and tallied with the facts of the present case and I come to the conclusion that the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment. 7. However, present writ petition is allowed in terms of judgment of Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [2002 (1) E.L.C. 508 (HC)]. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 21.7.2008 Rathour