The main legal point established is that unauthorized occupants must establish title for possession of public land and cannot dictate the method of eviction.

( 1 ) WHILE approaching the court for equitable reliefs, it has been contended by the petitioners that they had occupied the public land, becoming the law unto themselves, and thus, cannot be evicted without following the procedure prescribed by law. Some modes have been suggested by them, i. e. to initiate proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act 1972) or U. P. Urban planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act 1973 ). In such a factual matrix, the question does arise as to whether a person who has the audacity to encroach upon the Public Land, can seek such a relief from the equity Court.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that there are 85 petitioners in this writ petition and all of them have constructed their houses on the public land, without having any allotment in their favour. They have been issued ration cards, and are paying the water taxes and electricity dues regularly. Land belonged to the Irrigation Department of the State of U. P. as is evident from the notice. Instead of regularising their occupation, the Encroachment removal Drive has been started, that too without following the procedure prescribed under Section 27 of the Act 1973. More so, in some of the cases criminal proceedings had been initiated for encroaching upon the land in dispute which ended in acquittal. Therefore, the petitioners contend that they cannot be evicted without resorting to the procedure prescribed under the act 1972, or Act 1973, or without filing the suit for their eviction.

( 3 ) SHRI Ramendra Asthana, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly petitioners had never been allotted the land in dispute, but being unauthorised occupants, without resorting to the provisions of S. 22 (e) (ii) of the Act, 1972 or Section 27 of the Act 1973, no demolition can take place. Some of the petitioners had been tried in the criminal Court for illegal encroachment but the case ended in acquittal. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the relief claimed, as under no circumstance even a trespasser can be evicted forcibly.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Standing counsel has submitted that the petitioners have admitted that they are rank trespassers. Unless they show their legal right to continue in possession of the land in dispute, they cannot choose the mode or method, by which they can be evicted. The writ Court being meant for granting equitable reliefs, should not grant indulgence to the persons like petitioners, who have admittedly encroached upon the public land. If the criminal proceedings initiated against some of the petitioners earlier, had ended in acquittal, that does not create any right in their favour to continue in illegal possession, for the reason that the findings recorded by the criminal courts are not binding in such a case. More so, paying the water tax or electricity dues or even getting the map sanctioned for construction from the statutory authority, does not create any title in their favour, over the land in dispute. Petitioners do not claim title to have been acquired by adverse possession. Proceedings under the Act 1972 or Act 1973, being summary proceedings, the issue of title cannot be determined therein. Therefore, unless the petitioners show, what is their legal right to continue in possession/occupation, the writ petition should not be entertained and should be dismissed.

( 5 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the land.

( 6 ) IN Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100, the Honble Apex Court observe as under (para 11):"an admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. "

( 7 ) THE same view had been reiterated in avadh Kish