IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 427 (MS) OF 2006 State of Uttaranchal through Collector, Pauri Garhwal. ...............Petitioner. Versus 1. District Judge, Pauri Garhwal. 2. prescribed Authority (Eviction)/Up Ziladhikari, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. 3. Sri Ashok Kumar, S/o late Shiv Narayn, resident of Village Jonk, Swargashram, Patti Udaipur, Tall-1, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. 4. Bharat Sadhoo Samaj, through its Manager (Substituted). 5. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust Parmarth Niketan Swargasharam, through its Managing Trustee all the residents of Villages Jonk, Swargasharam, Patti Udaipur, Talla-1 Tehsil-Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. ..........Respondents. Dated: 27.04.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri R.C. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3. By the present writ petitions, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16th February, 2005 (Annexure No. 20 to the writ petitions) passed by the respondent no. 1 i.e. District Judge, Pauri Garhwal and to 2 restore the order dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure No. 19 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.2. A perusal of the appellate order shows that the appeal has been allowed only on the ground that the proceeding for cancellation of the lease deed is pending in appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. Briefly stated, the proceedings under Section 4/5 of the U.P. Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, were initiated on the basis of Challani report of the Patwari Pauri stating therein that the respondents are unauthorized occupant and are liable to be evicted in the aforesaid proceedings. As will appear from the report that Halka Patwari went to the spot and he found the illegal possession of the respondents over the land in question and accordingly prepared a map, extract of Khasra and Khatauni at the spot. According to the petitioner, the land has been recorded in the name of the U.P. Government now the State of Uttaranchal. On the basis of the aforesaid Challani report, a notice was issued U/s 4(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act requiring the respondents to show cause with regard to the unauthorized occupation. The occupant has filed the reply denying the fact that he is in illegal occupation. The Prescribed Authority has passed the order on 11.08.1950 by observing that the lease was granted in favour of the Geeta Bhawan and the Geeta Bhawan having violated the terms and conditions and thereafter on 21.09.1988 the lease in favour of the Bharat Sadhu Samaj was cancelled and the same has vested with the State Government. Following order was passed by the prescribed authority:- 3 “mi;qZDr foospu ls Li"V gS fd xzke tkSad iV~Vh mn;iqj rYyk rglhy dksV}kj] ftyk ikSM+h ds [ksr ua0 63 e/;s iz’uxr Hkwfe ftldk jdok 4X11.50=46.00 oxZ eh0 m0iz0 ljdkj ds uke ij cxM+ ntZ gS] ij izfroknh la[;k &2 Hkkjr lk/kw lekt us xhrk Hkou mUgsa yht ij Lohd`r Hkwfe dks voS/kkfud :i ls 1960 esa izkIr dj ml Hkou@nqdku dk fuekZ.k dj dCtk fd;k gqvk gSA izfroknh la[;k&2 }kjk nqdku izfroknh la[;k&1 nqdkunkj dks fdjk;s ij nh xbZ gS nqdku ij nqdkunkj Hkkjr lk/kq lekt ds fdjk;snkj ds :i esa dkfct gSaA izfroknh la[;k&3 lq[knsokuUn VªLV ijekFkZ fudsru dk iz’uxr Hkou@nqdku ij izR;{k vFkok ijks{k dCtk ughas ik;k x;kA vkns’k mi;qZDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij voS/k v/;klh la[;k &1 v’kksd dqekj fuoklh xzke&tkSad ¼LoxkZJe½] iV~Vh mn;iqj rYyk rglhy dksV}kj ¼tks fdjk;snkj ds :i esa nqdku ij dkfct gaS½ izfroknh la[;k&2 Hkkjr lk/kq lekt }kjk izcU/kd tks iz’uxr Hkou@nqdku ds Lokeh gS rFkk voS/k v/;klh la[;k &3] lq[knsokuUn VªLV ijekFkZ fudsru }kjk eSusftax VªLVh iz’uxr Hkwfe@nqdku esa tks Hkh fgr fufgr gS dks bl U;k;ky; }kjk lkotZtfud Hkwx`gkfn vf/kfu;e & 1972 dh /kkjk &4¼1½ ds rgr dze’k% fnukad 2@11@98] 26@8@2000 ,oa fnukad 27@01@2001 dks tkjh uksfVlksa dks vfUre fd;k tkrk gSA rFkk mUgsa xzke tkSad ¼LoxZJe½ ds [kljk uEcj &63 dh 4X11.50=46.00 oxZ eh0 Hkwfe ls csn[ky fd;k tkrk gSA rn~uqlkj izi=&[k tkjh gks ckn vko’;d dk;Zokgh ds i=koyh vfHkys[kkxkj esa lafpr gksA” Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2002, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed three civil appeal Nos. 47/2002 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal, Civil Appeal No. 65/2002 Bharat Sandhu Samaj Sukhdeva Nand Trust Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Civil Appeal No. 92/2002 Swami Sukhdevanand Trust Vs. State of Uttaranchal which were allowed by a common judgment passed by the respondent no. 4 1 on 16.02.2005 with the observation that the Commissioner Garhwal Mandal has already stayed the order passed by the District magistrate cancelling the lease. In view of the aforesaid, the matter is sent back to the District Judge for deciding the appeal afresh after awaiting the result of the proceedings with regard to the cancellation of the lease. The eviction appeals shall be disposed of by the District judge after disposal of all the appeals pending before the Commissioner. Subject to the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 27.04.2006 Rathour