Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—All the three writ petitions have identical facts and involve a common question of law as to the officer competent to act as a Prescribed Authority under Section 3 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short ‘Act’).

2. Since the question raised in all the three writ petitions was purely legal in nature, Standing Counsel and counsel for respondent No. 1 were given time to obtain instructions and, if necessary, to file counter-affidavit. The respondents have chosen not to file counter-affidavit and have produced various notifications issued by the Governor of U.P. in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act in order to get the petitions decided at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioners are facing proceedings for their eviction from the disputed premises which belong to and are owned by Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr before the City Magistrate under the provisions of the Act. The objection of the petitioners that the City Magistrate has no jurisdiction to act as a Prescribed Authority under the Act and, therefore, the proceedings before him are without jurisdiction has been rejected by the orders impugned in the petitions.

4. I have heard Sri Amitabh Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Yadav, Senior Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing for Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr. They consented for the final disposal of the writ petitions on the above legal point on the basis of the notifications placed before the Court.

5. Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that in the notification dated 22nd August, 1974 published in the Official Gazette dated 31st August, 1974 (hereinafter referred as “1974 Notification”) issued under Section 3 of the Act, Additional District Magistrates throughout the State of U.P. have been conferred powers to act as Prescribed Authority under the Act and, therefore, neither the City Magistrate nor the District Magistrate has any authority of law to take cognizance of any matter under the Act as a Prescribed Authority.

6. On the other hand, Sri C.B. Yadav and Sri Nisheeth Yadav submit that according to the instructions received from the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr there is an earlier notification dated 14th June, 1972 (hereinafter referred as “1972 Notification”) issued under Section 3 of the Act which confers the power of the Prescribed Authority under the Act upon all the Sub-Divisional Officers and the Additional Sub-Divisional Officers within their sub-divisions; the City Magistrates and the Additional City Magistrates within their city divisions and the Special Secretary to Government of U.P. in Public Works Department for Lucknow and Nainital. The aforesaid notification has not been superseded by the 1974 Notification and, therefore, in the absence of Additional District Magistrates, the City Magistrates and the Additional City Magistrates continue to act as Prescribed Authority under the Act.

7. The aforesaid Act provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters thereto. The power to draw proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupants from the public premises and to pass orders for their eviction, if necessary, vests with the Prescribed Authority notified under the Act.

8. The Prescribed Authority has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act to mean an Officer appointed as Prescribed Authority by the State Government. Section 3 of the Act provides that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint Gazetted Officers of the State Government or officers of equivalent rank or the corporate authority to be Prescribed Authority for the purposes of the Act and define the local limits or the categories of public premises in respect of which the Prescribed Aut