( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. S. Diwekar, counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2nd September, 2002 and the show cause notice dated 25th September, 2000 and also writ of prohibition prohibiting the proceedings.

( 3 ) FACTS of the case as stated in the writ petition, briefly stated, are; Plot No. 416 is a government estate land under the management of District Magistrate, Allahabad having area of 13 bighas, 19 bis was and 10 dhoors. On part of the aforesaid plot there is old building popularly known as European Lockup. It is claimed that father of the petitioner was clerk in the Collectorate who was allowed to occupy the land in pre-inde-pendence era. It is claimed that father of the petitioner died in the year 1983 and thereafter name of mother of the petitioner was mutated who too died in the year 1996. It is stated that for fiscal purposes the name of mother of the petitioner is recorded in the records of Nagar Nigam. It is claimed that house of the petitioner exists on the above land for the last 60 years. It is further claimed in the writ petition that certain other persons who occupied the land were granted lease of certain area. Petitioners mother also sent several reminders and applications for grant of lease of 3 biswas land of Plot No. 416, A notice under Section 4 (1) of U. P. Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1972 was issued to the petitioner by prescribed Authority on 25th September, 2000 asking the petitioner to show cause why petitioner be not evicted. Before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed a preliminary objection dated 25th October, 2000 to the effect that there is no jurisdiction to proceed under U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and any encroachment is questionable only under U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 2nd September, 2000 took the view that the land is Government estate land belonging to category 15 (2) whose owner is the State. It was further stated in the order that at this juncture there is no occasion to consider the question, the party may file their evidence and the objection is accordingly disposed of. The said order dated 2nd September, 2002 as well as the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority dated 25th September, 2000 have been challenged by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for writ of prohibition prohibiting the Prescribed Authority from proceeding with the case.

( 4 ) SRI A. S. Diwekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended since preliminary objection of the petitioner has been rejected and the Prescribed Authority is proceeding with the case, it is appropriate that this Court may consider the question raised in the writ petition which goes to very jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority to proceed under U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Although the Prescribed Authority has observed that petitioner may lead his evidence but the submission of counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the disposal of petitioners objection, Prescribed Authority has impliedly rejected his preliminary objection and it is necessary that this Court may examine and decide this question as to whether Prescribed Authority has jurisdiction under U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 or not.

( 5 ) THE counsel for the petitioner challenging the proceeding under U. P. Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 raised following submissions in support of the writ petition : (I) After the enforcement of U. P. Urban planning and Development Act, 1973, the provisions of U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 are no longer applicable with regard to development area and proceedings initiated by Prescribed A