The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal provisions for eviction notices and highlighted the need for specific retrospective provisions in legislation to take away protected rights.

JUDGMENT :

CLMA No. 4673 of 2011 has been preferred by Mr. Anand Ballabh, contending thereof, that he may be permitted to intervene in the matter, because he happens to be the complainant based on which, the proceeding under the provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 was initiated. Since the complainant has got no role to play as such, as after the initiation of the proceedings under Section 4/5, the interest of litigation stood protected by the State the owner of public property and it is not a case where, in the absence of the complainant the writ petition itself cannot be effectively decided on merits. Thus, the Intervention Application (CLMA/4673/2011) is misconceived, the same, is accordingly rejected.

2. A proceeding under Section 4/5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 stood instituted as against the occupant respondent No. 2 herein, who by the notices issued by the State on 10.07.2006, wherein, in the notice allegedly issued under Sections 4, 5, 7, the proceedings were contemplated to be taken against the illegal occupant respondent No. 2, in relation to the land lying in khatauni khata No. 117/118, pamise khet No. 87/62M, having an area of 89 nali, 5 mutthi of land which was contended by the respondent, that the same was being unauthorizedly occupied by the applicant and consequently they have determined the compensation to be made payable for its unauthorized use @ Rs. 4,000/- per annum and has determined the same as to be Rs. 1,40,000/- which was directed to be made payable by the respondent in the treasury of the State.

3. The matter had proceeded on the basis of the challani report, which was submitted on 10.10.2006, whereby the respondent No. 2, was noticed to participate in the proceedings for eviction and accordingly, the Case No. 10 of 2006-2007 dated 27.10.2006 State Vs. Ganga Dutt, stood instituted before the learned Prescribed Authority.

4. It is argued by the respondent, that in the notice thus issued under Section 4(1), the notice does not satisfies the conditions as provided under Section 4(2) of the Act, enumerating therein the grounds based on which, the proceedings for eviction is being contemplated to be taken as against the respondent. The matter proceeded and the same was contested by respondent No. 2, who had filed his objection on 25.02.2006 and in the objection which was filed, he has contended that the land lying in khata No. 2 khet No. 54/61, having a total area of 19 nali and 15 mutthi of land the same was said to have been purchased by the occupant respondent No. 2, from its previous occupant and accordingly, he was validly occupying the land, which was falling under the part of the sale deed, based on which he has purchased the land.

5. He has contended that out of the said land which was part and parcel of the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No. 2, it was the adjoining land of 15 nali which was said to be in occupation of the brother of respondent No. 2 Laxmi Dutt, in pursuance to the order of regularization which was issued on 24.02.1983 and as a consequence of the regularization of the land in favour Laxmi Dutt, who became an occupant of the land since 1971, hence the possession of the applicant, since it happens to be prior to 1970, it will not be a public land as per the provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, and specific ground in that regard was taken by respondent No. 2 in his objection filed on 28.03.2007. The relevant excerpts are extracted hereunder:-

^^4----------------- Lohd`r gqbZ Fkh] mDr fu;ferhdj.k ij Lohd`r Hkwfe ij vkokndkj dk lu~ 1971 ls dCtk Fkk] blh ds flyflys esa yxh gqbZ dqN Hkwfe ij Hkh vkiokndkj dk 1970 es tc vkokndkj ds }kjk Jh fpUeke.kh ls uke Hkwfe Ø; dh Fkh rc ls dCtk gS] bl dkj.k Hkh mDr Hkwfe lkoZtfud mi;ksx dh u gksus ds dkj.k bl ij Hkw^xzgkfn vf/kfu;e ykxw ugh gksrk gSA^^

6. In the proceedings which were held before the Cou