WPMS No. 463 of 2002. Hon’ble B. S. Verma, J. The writ petition is dismissed. Detailed order passed on separate sheet. (B. S. Court No. 10) Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 463 of 2002 (M/S) Ramesh Singh, S/O Shri Rajpal Singh, Village Kaparjan, Tehsil Jhakoli, District Rudra Prayag. …Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Divisional Forest Officer, Alakhnanda Range, Jambani, District Rudra Prayag and two others. …. Respondents. Sri S. K. Posti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Date January 09, 2009. Hon’ble B. S. Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 23-3-2002 passed by the trial court and the order dated 5-6-2002 passed by the Appellate Court. b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any action against the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. c) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. d) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that proceedings for eviction under Sections 4/5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 5-10-2000 of the Forest Range Officer. In the challani report it was alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon the land of reserved forest by constructing pucca house of two rooms on 24-9-2000 and the unauthorised occupant is adamant not to remove his occupation. Along with the challani report, enquiry report, site plan etc. were filed. Notice was issued to the petitioner on Form-Ka. The petitioner filed his written reply alleging therein that the notice is not legally valid and the Forest Range Officer has no jurisdiction to submit challani report. The jurisdiction relating to forest land vests with the Judicial Magistrate and not with the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner also alleged his old occupation form the time to his father and stated that his father had erected a cowshed on the disputed land before 40 years and since then he has been in occupation. It was also stated that in the year 1988, the petitioner got the cowshed repaired by raising pucca constructions. The house has been constructed only for agricultural purposes. The challani report is not legally maintainable against the petitioner. From the side of the State, two witnesses of forest department were examined, namely Pushu Lal Arya (PW 1) and Badar Singh (PW 2) and the petitioner examined himself as D.W. 1 and another witness Bachan Singh as D.W. 2. The learned Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner has raised unauthorized construction on the land in question on 24-9-2000. The land is reserved forest land. P.W. 1 has also proved the challani report and site plan. The learned Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioner has been in unauthorised occupation of the public premises and had raised pucca constructions; therefore, the petitioner was liable to be proceeded against under Section 4/5 of the Act. Ultimately, the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 23-3-2002 evicted the petitioner from the forest land and directed him to remove the unauthorised occupation from the premises in question within a period of thirty days. Aggrieved by the order dated 23-3-2002, the petitioner preferred appeal (Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2001) before the District Judge, Rudra Prayag. The learned District Judge did not find favour with the appellant-petitioner and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 5-6-2002 and upheld the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Hence this writ petition. On behalf of respondent no. 2, counter affidavit has been filed. The affidavit is duly sworn in by Sri Kalyan Singh Kunwar, the then Forest Range Officer of Upper Ganga Forest Division, Karnprayag. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the land in question belongs to forest department. It is also stated that on 24-9-2000 the petitioner had encroached the land in question measuring 6 Mt. x 4 Mt. and constructed two rooms thereon. It has also been stated the petitioner has no right or title over the land in question and no documents were filed to that effect before the courts below. It is also stated that the petitioner failed to lead any evidence to show the right or title of one Vidya Datt, who is alleged to be tenure holder. The main ground of challenge raised in this writ petition is that the petitioner has been in occupation of the land in question, which is recorded in the name of one Vidya Datt, who was the tenure holder of the said land, therefore, the eviction order of the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law. It has also been contended that the petitioner has long standing occupation over the disputed land, therefore, on that ground also, the petitioner cannot be evicted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the outset, it may be mentioned that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a court of appeal and cannot reassess or re-evaluate the evidence led by the parties before the courts below. Only it has to be examined whether the impugned orders have been passed on proper appraisal of evidence and whether there is any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. At the outset, it may be stated that in his written reply, the petitioner has only stated that a cow- shed was constructed by his father about 40 years back on the land in question and in the year 1988, the petitioner repaired the same and raised pucca construction. The petitioner has not alleged in his written reply that the premises in question even belonged to Vidya Datt or his father. It is obvious from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority that P.W. 1 Pushu Lal Arya, and P.W. 2, Badar Singh have been examined from the side of the State, and they have been cross-examined from the side of the petitioner. The petitioner examined himself as D.W. 1 Ramesh Singh before the Prescribed Authority. In his examination in chief, he stated that the cowshed was constructed in the year 1988 on the nap land of Vidya Datt alias Hriday Ram. He also stated that the land was taken from Vidya Datt for construction of Gaushala. The best person to corroborate the statement of the petitioner could be Vidya Datt, but he has not been produced before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner could have filed the document to show the rightful possession or title of Vidya Datt over the land in question, but no such evidence was led by the petitioner. On the other hand, the witness D.W. 2 Bachan Singh in his cross-examination stated that he does not know as to who is the owner of the land under challani report and he also does not know about the land belonging to Vidya Datt. The Prescribed Authority after appraisal of the evidence has recorded a finding of fact that the challani land is a reserved forest land and the occupation of the petitioner thereon is unauthorised. The Prescribed Authority also recorded a finding that the occupant has failed to prove his occupation to be legal and by a detailed order has passed the order of eviction against the petitioner. The appellate court has also considered and thrashed out the evidence and has held that the land under challani report in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner is definite and particular land, which has been shown in the site plan and the appellate court has rejected the contention of the appellant-petitioner for survey of the land. The appellate court has also held that no right has accrued to the petitioner on the public premises and the petitioner cannot be treated to be owner of the land belonging to the State. Before the courts below, the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that the land under challani report is a land under the tenure holding and, therefore, provisions of the Public Premises Act were not attracted. The appellate court has also held that the State can take recourse to the provisions of law under any particular enactment for eviction of the petitioner and the proceedings were not vitiated because no action was taken under the provisions of the Indian Forests Act. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material on record, I am of the considered view that the orders passed by the courts below are fully based on evidence led by the parties and it cannot be said that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the evidence on record. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the orders impugned. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim order dated 2-7-2002 stands vacated. (B.S. Verma,J.) RCP