Mandatory compliance of provisions for service of notice is essential for valid eviction proceedings under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.

S. K. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by a lessee of the State of Orissa to quash Annexure 1 (final order of O. P. No, 1) and Annexure 4 (appellate order) passed in eviction proceedings under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner obtained lease of a piece of land measuring 45 ft. x 80 ft. in extent comprised in plot No. 15a situated in Unit' No. 1 at Bapuji Nagar from the State of Orissa. The lease deed was executed on 20-9-1970 and possession was delivered through the Revenue Inspector of P. and S. Department on 9-21971. At the time of allotment a plan of the leasehold premises was prepared which in this case is drawing No. C. 5417. According to it the leasehold property was bounded as follows:--North --Plot No 15-B south --Plot No. 15 east --Govt. land and road, and West --18' wide lane.

( 2 ) IT is admitted that the usual procedure at the time of delivery of possession of the leasehold property is to make out a possession report signed by the allottee and the Revenue Inspector of P. and S. Department and a copy of such report is delivered to the allottee and another copy is retained by the lessor in the relevant lease-case record. State Government's copy is not forthcoming on the ground that it is not traceable. The petitioner has extracted relevant portion of it in para 2 of his petition, apparently from his copy, which runs as follows:-" demarcation of shop-cum-residence plot No. 15-A in shop-cum-residential site in Unit No. 1 Bapuji Nagar taken from the Estate Officer and ex-officio Deputy Secretary to Government, P. and S. Department on the 9th day of February, 1971 in accordance with the registered lease deed and drawing No. C-5417. The size of the plot is 45' x 80' and bounded by: on the North --Plot No 15-B on the South --Plot No. 15 on t handed over by Taken over by r. I. of P. and S. Sk. Khalilur Rahe-Department man lessee, on 9-2-71. on 9-2-71. "

( 3 ) AFTER getting delivery of possession, the petitioner constructed a shop-cumresidential building on the leasehold premises with prior permission from all appropriate authorities, viz. . Special Planning Authority, Bhubaneswar, Estate officer, Bhubaneswar, and the Notified Area Council, Bhubaneswar and let it out to Allahabad Bank with effect from 1-11-1973 who uses it as a residence-cumoffice.

( 4 ) AN eviction proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 30-3-1974 under the Act which was registered as O. P. P. Case No. 66 of 1974 and notice under Section 4 (1) thereof was directed to be issued and the matter was directed to be put up on 22-4-74. Without serving any notice on the petitioner as required by Section 4 of the Act the final order of eviction was passed holding the petitioner to be in unauthorised occupation of the Government land (Annexure 1) and notice of eviction under Section 5 (1) of the Act was directed to be issued.

( 5 ) THE petitioner became aware of the eviction proceeding on 16-1-75, when some personnel of the Political and Services Department arrived at the spot to dismantle a part of the building pursuant to notice under Section 5 (1) of the act, and filed an appeal before the opposite party No. 2 from Annexure 1 on 30-1-75. The opposite party No. 2 dismissed the appeal both on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present writ application to quash Annexures 1 and 4.

( 6 ) THE main ground of attack is that as no notice had been served on him as required by mandatory provisions of Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act, Annexure 1 is void and of no legal effect and consequently Annexure 4 is also liable to be quashed along with it. The petitioner asserts that he constructed his building on the plot of land delivered to him by the Revenue inspector in pursuance of the allotment order and if notice had been served on him, he could have shown that there had been no encroachment by