The central legal point established is the determination of the applicability of the U.P. Public Premises Act and the UPZA&LR Act to the disputed land, based on their definitions and relevant notifications.

JUDGMENT :

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.1449 of 2011 alone are being considered and discussed.

2. Proceedings under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as “Act No. 22 of 1972”) were initiated against the petitioners, which resulted in passing of eviction order against them. Petitioners filed Appeal under Section 9 of the Act, which were dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. In these petitions, petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 11.07.2011 passed by Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

3. In the writ petition, it is contended that the land comprised in Khasra No. 78 Mauja Rishikesh, District Dehradun was owned by one Lalit Mohan and petitioners were occupying the said land as tenant, wherefrom they were running their business. In para 3 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that declaration under Section 143 of Uttar Pradesh Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (from hereinafter referred to as “UPZA&LR Act”) was also made by the Competent Authority in respect of the said land. It is contended that since the land is governed by UPZA&LR Act, therefore, petitioners can be evicted only by following the procedure laid down in UPZA&LR Act.

4. Although reply to the notice issued under Sections 4(1) of Act No. 22 of 1972, is not enclosed, however, from the judgment rendered by Prescribed Authority, it is revealed that petitioners claimed title by adverse possession, which they could not prove.

5. Stand taken by respondent no. 3 before Prescribed Authority was that the land in question was included within municipal limits before 07.04.1949; land is recorded in the name of Education Department; it is being used by petitioners for commercial purpose, therefore, it does not qualify to be land, as defined under Section 3(14) of UPZA&LR Act. Reliance was placed upon gazette notification dated 19.03.2022, whereby Notified Area Rishikesh was established.

6. Learned Prescribed Authority held that there is nothing on record to show that petitioners were in possession as agriculturist and their claim of possession is not supported by any entry in revenue records; it was further held that the land in question is not used for agriculture, therefore it does not come within the meaning of the term ‘land’, as defined in UPZA&LR Act. Learned Appellate Authority affirmed the judgment rendered by Prescribed Authority by holding that the land in question was recorded in Revenue Record in the name of Education Department, as the same was gifted on 20.08.1973 by Lalit Mohan to Education Department for establishing a Government Degree College and provisions of UPZA&LR Act are not applicable to the said land, as it was within Municipal Limits on the date of enforcement of said Act.

7. Challenging the judgment passed by Appellate Authority, learned counsel for petitioners contended that Section 4(2)(b) of Act No. 22 of 1972 ordains that minimum ten days’ time is to be given to the alleged unauthorized occupant for submitting reply, but petitioners were given only one day’s time which vitiates the entire proceedings. However, neither show cause notice is enclosed nor date of issuance of notice is mentioned in the writ petition to substantiate the said contention. The date of service of such notice upon petitioners is missing and the writ petition is silent as regards the last date for submission of reply. In the absence of these relevant particulars, the contention as raised by petitioners, cannot be accepted.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners then contends that since it is an agricultural land, therefore, petitione