Surjit Singh, J.—Through the present writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the quashing of notice dated 5.8.1998, issued by the Collector, Kullu in Case to, 4 of 2002 (Annexure P-3), order dated 29.9.2004 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Collector, Kullu in the aforesaid case No. 4 of 2002 and order dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi in appeal against the order Annexure P-8, besides seeking direction the respondents not to take any further action against the petitioner ider the provisions of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and lent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and not evict him from the land measuring one Biswa, 8 Biswansis, bearing Khasra No. 4434/1, situate in Phati and Kothi Nagar, Tehsil and District Kullu, except by due process of law.

2. A notice was issued under the Act to the petitioner on 5.8.1998 (copy Annexure P-3), calling upon him to show because why he should not be evicted from the land, described hereinabove, as he was in unauthorized occupation thereof within the meaning of the Act. This notice was issued by the Collector, District Kullu on the basis of an application, filed before him by respondent No.

2. In the application respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner had made encroachment upon the above described land, which belonged to it, but was managed, supervised and possessed by the State Government. The petitioner, it appears, took the stand that his grand-father had occupied the land, in question, sometime in the year 1965 and constructed a structure thereon and had been running a small shop in that structure till his death, which took place in the year 1989 and that thereafter he (the petitioner) himself had been in occupation of the land and the structure standing thereon. He alleged that his and his grand-fathers possession had been open, hostile, uninterrupted and continuous and thus he had acquired title by prescription. He also pleaded that the premises were not public premises within the meaning of the Act and hence the Collector did not have the jurisdiction.

3. The Collector, vide order Annexure P~8, without indicating how the premises were assumed to be public premises, passed the impugned order. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, under Section 9 of the Act. That has been dismissed vide order Annexure P-.

10. The Commissioner has observed that respondent No. 2, who initiated the proceedings for eviction of the petitioner by making an application to the Collector, is an Improvement Trust and that the property, owned by an Improvement Trust, is covered by the definition of public premises vide sub-clause (i) of clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act and hence the Collector had the jurisdiction.

4. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 is not an Improvement Trust and hence the impugned orders of the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Advocate General for respondent No. 1 and the learned Counsel representing respondent No. 2.

6. Public premises are defined in clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act. The aforesaid clause is reproduced for ready reference:— "2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) To (d) xxxx xxxx (e) "Public premises" means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the State Government and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of— (i) Any municipal corporation/committee, notified area committee, Panchayat Samiti, Panchayat or improvement trust; (ii) Any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; (iii) any corporation (not being a company as define