The U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 is not applicable to agricultural land, and eviction can proceed under other relevant laws.

Heard Sri Sarvesh Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. G. Arya learned Standing counsel for the State.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 23-8-1993 and 17-9-1992 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i. e. District Magistrate, Nainital and Pre scribed Authority/sub Divisional Mag istrate respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a notice under Section 4 (1) of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthor ized occupants) Act, 1992 was sent to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant. The peti tioner filed objection against the said notice. The learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate passed the order on 1/-9-1992 by which he directed the dispos session of the petitioner from the land in dispute. Against the said order dated 17-9-1992, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appellate Court rejected the petitioner appeal vide order dated 23- 8-1993.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the afore said orders, the petitioner preferred this petition before the Allahabad High Court, which has been transferred to this Court, for disposal, after creation of new State.

5. I have heard the submissions of the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents- State and Sri Sarvesh Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. At the outset, it may be men tioned that this Court vide judgment delivered today i. e on 25-5-2006 in Writ Petition No. 3235 (M/s) of 2001 Krishna Kant Vs. 1st Additional District Judge Nainital and others along with 42 others writ petitions have already con sidered the controversy involved in the present writ petition. All the 43 writ petitions preferred by different peti tioners were allowed by that common judgment and it was held that the provisions of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were not applicable to the agricultural land and its was open to the State to proceed for eviction of the petitioners under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act/kuza Act and other allied laws in force. It was also observed therein that the petitioners may also get their title declared by filing suit under Section 229-B of the Z. A. and L. R. Act/kuza Act. pro vided they establish their stand before the Revenue Court. The learned Standing Counsel fairly conceded that the present petition is squarely covered by the said judgment.

7. In view of the fact that this Court has already decided as many as 43 similar writ petition by a common judg ment today, there is no need to repeat the same material again in the case at hand. The present writ petition is fully covered by the Judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 3235 (M/s) of 2001, Krishna Kant Vs. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and others along with 42 other writ petitions decided by this Court on 25-5-2006 itself. This writ petition deserves to be allowed on merit in terms of the said judgment.

8. The present writ petition stands allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3235 (M/s) of 2001. Krishna Kant Vs. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital. No order as to costs.

.