Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

Controversy involved in all the petitions is identical, though the petitioners vary, however the defendants are same and this Court has to adhere and adjudicate upon a common question of law, therefore, common order is being passed in all the petitions. Writ Petition No. 1257 of 2011 (M/S) shall be the leading case.

2. All the petitions have been filed assailing the orders of the Appellate Courts by which orders of Prescribed Authorities under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were upheld. The petitioners are challenging the validity of eviction proceedings initiated against them by the State Government under the Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no proceedings under the Act could be initiated against the petitioners after the period of two years from the date of creation of State of Uttarakhand, as the Act has not been adapted by the State of Uttarakhand within stipulated period of two years, therefore, in absence of any adaptation order of State of Uttarakhand, the provisions of the Act cannot be permitted to be invoked after completion of stipulated period from cut off date i.e. 09.11.2000.

4. It is asserted in some petitions that under the provisions of Kumaon Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948, the tenure holder of the Kumaon Division (which included Garhwal Division as well at that time) had a right to extend his cultivation under the Act as right of extension. It was also provided in the Act that the person so extending his cultivation, shall possess the same rights over such extension as he has in his original cultivation. In some of the petitions, the petitioners claim their possession over the land in dispute, recorded in the name of State Government and they had already constructed cowshed and hutment thereon for their cattle and the land in dispute has been in possession of the petitioners from the time of their ancestors. In some of the petitions, the petitioners asserted that the land in dispute is shown in the name of Van Panchayat. It is asserted that Rule 20 (b) of Panchayati Forest Rules, 2005 entrusted on the management committee to institute and defend the suits and proceedings in respect of the claims arising under these Rules. Rule 25 (g) of Panchayati Forest Rules, 2005 fix duty on the Surpanch to institute civil suits and launch prosecution on behalf of the management committee. Hence, in respect of the land relating to the Van Panchayat, no proceedings can be initiated on pursuance of the Revenue Officer/Patwari by invoking the Act. In some of the petitions, it is alleged that the property in dispute is totally out of public use and the local public has also no objection upon the use of the property, which is in the possession of the petitioners and which is registered in the name of the petitioners in Khata-Khatauni. In some petitions it is asserted that the land in dispute was in occupation of the petitioners in the capacity of tenant on behalf of its landlords.

5. It is asserted in the petitions that on the basis of Challani reports received from the Patwari concerned, on the allegations of unauthorized occupation, the respondent/State initiated proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was registered before the trial Court/Prescribed Authority. Accordingly, the Prescribed Authority issued notices in the Form A under Section 4(1) of the Act, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the petitioners may not be evicted from the land in question. The petitioners appeared before the Prescribed Authority and filed their respective written statements. It is asserted that the notice was defective as notice under Section 4 of the Act provides that there must be a prima-facie opinion of the Prescribed Authority that the person, against whom such notices have been issued, is in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and he should be evicted. Fur