Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Zafaryab Jilani, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Zainuddin Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondent in Writ Petition No.6612 of 1990 while in others Sri Manish and Pankaj Srivastava have appeared. Since these cases have been listed in the category of old cases, I proceed to decide the matter.

2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, the same are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the purpose of facts, writ petition No. 6612 of 1990 is being treated as leading case and pleadings are being referred therefrom.

3. The proceedings were initiated by petitioner-State for ejectment of respondent No. 3 from accommodation in question under the provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”).

4. Respondent No. 3 took objection that he has perfected his rights of ownership by application of principle of adverse possession i.e. Prescription and, therefore, he cannot be evicted from premises in dispute. The said objection has been affirmed by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 18.1.1983 and application of State was rejected. The petitioner’s appeal has also been rejected by Ist Additional District Judge, Lucknow vide judgment dated 10th May, 1995, hence this writ petition. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing both the aforesaid orders. The facts in other connected writ petitions are similar.

5. It is basically contended that respondent’s own case was that he occupied land in question as a Raiyat of erstwhile owner Raja Dera. The pleadings lacked necessary facts to attract plea of adverse possession and without looking into this aspect, impugned orders have been passed, which are liable to be set aside. It is also contended that such a serious issue, involving civil rights could not have been considered and adjudicated by Prescribed Authority in summary proceedings under Act, 1972.

6. Sri Jilani, learned Additional Advocate General contended, that if Prescribed Authority found that there was a title dispute in respect to property in question, it ought to have returned application or rejected it, directing petitioner to approach civil Court but issue of title on the basis of adverse possession could not have been decided by the authorities under the proceedings in Act, 1972, which are summary in nature.

7. In my view, the two issues, need be considered in this matter are:

(i) Whether Prescribed Authority exercising its jurisdiction under Act, 1972 can enter into serious question of title?

(ii) Whether issue of title raised by respondents in the case in hand conform to the requisite pleadings and whether prerequisites in law to attract principle of adverse possession has been looked into by Courts below in passing impugned orders, declaring that title of respondent has perfected on the ground of adverse possession.

8. Before entering into discussion and adjudication on the aforesaid issues, it would be necessary to look into the facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute.

9. The Estate Officer (Rajya Sampatii Adhikari) filed an application dated 11th September, 1980 before Prescribed Authority under Section 4 of Act, 1972 for damages and eviction of opposite party(s).

10. The land in dispute formed part of the building and land appurtenant thereto, known as Ahatha Raja Dera, Kothi Lalbagh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “property”). The entire property was sold by Raja Jagdish Pratap Sahi, Dera Estate, Sultanpur vide sale deed dated 15.6.1963 to Praveen Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti. At the relevant time, Raja Jagdish Pratap Sahi, Son of Raja Auadhendra Pratap Sahi was the owner of said property and he executed the aforesaid sale deed. Subsequently, aforesaid property was purchased by Medical Department