Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—These two writ petitions have been filed against identical order passed by the Defence Estate Officer. The facts of the two cases are similar. For convenience facts of Writ Petition No. 16655 of 2017 are being noted. The only difference in two cases being the the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16653 of 2017 claims to be a tenant of the original HOR while petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16655 of 2017 claims to be a transferee of the legal representatives of the recorded HOR.

2. Writ-C No. 16655 of 2017 has been filed against the order of the Estate Officer, Cantonment Board, Meerut dated 5.2.2014 and also the judgment and order passed in appeal there from, dated 8.3.2017, by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut. These orders arise from proceedings under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.P. Act’).

3. Petitioner had filed Misc. Appeal No. 37 of 2014 against the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by Estate Officer, Cantonment Board, Meerut in which the judgement and order dated 8.3.2017 has been passed by the Additional District Judge, Meerut. Earlier, there were certain judgments of this Court, wherein that the order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5A of the P.P. Act was held to be appealable. However, a Full Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 40360 of 2015, vide judgment dated 12.1.2016, held such an appeal is not maintainable. In the present case also the petitioner’s appeal has therefore been dismissed, as not maintainable, vide order dated 8.3.2017.

4. Thus, while there is no error in the order of the Appeal Court dated 8.3.2027, yet, the delay/laches if any in filing the present writ petition, is fully explained, in so far as it raises challenge to the order dated 5.2.2014.

5. The petitioner claims to have purchased a constructed residential quarter ad-measuring 56 sq. meter (hereinafter referred to as ‘public premises in question’) from one Narendra Kumar Agarwal son of Late Jai Prakash Agarwal, vide sale-deed dated 30.5.2000. A copy of such sale-deed has been annexed with the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner in these proceedings.

6. According to the petitioner, there is a recital in the sale-deed : the property thus sold belonged to the father of the vendor, namely, Sri Jai Prakash and on his death, upon a mutual settlement between the heirs of the deceased, the ‘offending structure’ came to the share of the said Narendra Kumar Agarwal; the vendor gave to the petitioner a right to obtain mutation in the records of the Cantonment Board on the strength of the sale-deed. However, it is admitted to the petitioner, such mutation has not been obtained; the constructed area being transferred to the petitioner measured 23 square meter (hereinafter referred to the ‘offending structure’) and the remaining was an open area.

7. Admittedly, the ‘public premises in question’ forms part of the bungalow No. 64-A Chapel Street (Church Road), Meerut Cantt. recorded as survey No. 212 in General Land Register (hereinafter referred to as ‘GLR’) maintained by the respondent authorities. The nature of the land of the said bungalow is shown as B-3.

8. According to the record produced by the respondent during the course of these proceedings, including copy of the Governor General Order No. 179 of 12.9.1836, entry of Holder of Occupancy Right (hereinafter referred to as ‘HOR’) is shown in favour of M/s Sri Ramesh Chandra, Chandra Prakash, Anand Prakash, Jai Prakash, Smt. Salekia Devi and Prem Prakash. Last mutation of date 22.2.1972 has been shown recorded.

9. It is in the above back ground, the petitioner first received a show-cause notice under Section 5-A (2) of the P.P. Act, dated 3.2.2011. As much argument has been advanced on this notice and scope of the proceedings, it would be b