WPMS No.3092 / 1993 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. B. P. Nautiyal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned brief holder for the State. Proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1972 was initiated against the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the plot No.49 Kha having an area of 0.170 hectare, which he is in wrongful possession. The petitioner, upon receipt of the said notice, filed his reply stating that the plot in question is an old grove and he is in possession of the said plot before 1950. It has also been brought on record that there is a Government Order dated 20th July, 1989 whereby the possession of persons, who were unauthorized occupants of a land prior to 20th May, 1989, should be regularized. It has been stated that this date was subsequently extended till 30th June, 1990. In para 5 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner has made an application for regularization and, on the said application, a report was submitted by the Patwari before the prescribed authority that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question for the last 25-30 years. The Patwari was also examined, who stated on oath that there is a grove in plot No.49 Kha and that the grove is an old one. In the light of these facts, which have not been disputed by the respondent since no counter affidavit has been filed over these years, it becomes clear that the plot No.49 Kha is a grove and there are old trees as per the report of the Patwari and that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question for more than 25 years. Consequently, the application of the petitioner for regularization of the possession was liable to be considered as per the G.O. dated 20th July, 1989 which admittedly has not been done nor there is anything to indicate that no such application has been filed. In the light of the aforesaid, the prescribed authority committed a manifest error in directing the petitioner to evict from the plot in question. The appellate authority has also committed the same error. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to regularize the possession of the petitioner on the plot in question in accordance with the aforesaid Government Order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 14.12.2011 LSR