JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - On 17th January, 1966, the District Engineer, North-Eastern Railway, Varanasi, filed a complaint with the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, alleging that Babu Lal Gupta, respondent No. 1, had encroached upon an area of 55 feet x 35 feet, total 1925 square feet, of railway land in Ghazipur city, and prayed that Babu Lal be evicted therefrom. A claim of Rs. 462/- as compensation for use and occupation for unauthorised occupation of the premises for the last three years was also made. Along with the complaint the District Engineer filed a map showing the encroachment. On the basis of this complaint the Estate Officer issued notice under Secs. 4 and 7 of the Act to Babu Lal on 29th January, 1966, requiring him to show cause. Babu Lal filed an objection on 10th February, 1966. He claimed that he had built a double-storeyed pucca house more than eighteen years ago and that the site of the house belonged to him as the zamindar of the mohal in which the land was situate. He denied that the land belonged to the Railway. In the alternative, he pleaded title by adverse possession. It was also pleaded that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to demolish the house. The claim for damages was also denied. 2. At the hearing before the Estate Officer the District Engineer filed extracts from the khatauni and khasra of the village for the year 1373 Fasli. He did not adduce any oral evidence. The objector, however, filed extracts from the revenue papers for the years 1368 to 1373 Fasli along with two maps sanctioned by the Municipal Board. He produced three witnesses in support of his case. 3. The Estate Officer held that the question to be considered was whether the opposite party, namely, Babu Lal Gupta, had been able to prove that the land belonged to him, and observed that at the very outset it was to be noted that the plan submitted by the Railway authorities along with the complaint of the District Engineer clearly proved that the construction of the opposite party lay in the northern portion of plot No. 194, which belonged to the Railway. The documentary evidence filed by Babu Lal Gupta was held to be unreliable, and it was found that in the oral statement he had admitted that he had encroached upon a portion of the Railway land. On these findings the objector (Babu Lal Gupta) was directed to be evicted from the premises in question, if he failed to vacate the same within thirty days. The Assistant Engineer, N. E. Railway, Ballia, was directed to take possession of the premises in question by force, if necessary. The objector was held liable to pay Rs. 462/- as damages for three years, and future damages at Rs. 12/83 per month till the date of delivery of possession. 4. Aggrieved, the objector went up in appeal, but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved, the objector came to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge repelled the submission that the notice issued under Sec. 4 of the Act was vague or that the proceedings were without jurisdiction because there was a bonafide dispute about title. The learned Judge held that the map filed by the Railway authorities could not be relied upon unless it was properly proved. It was also found that on a proper construction of Secs. 4 and 5 of the Act it could not be held that the burden of proof was upon the Objector that he was not in unauthorised occupation of public premises. It was for the public authority to establish, in the first instance, that the property in dispute was public premises, and, secondly that the person concerned was in unauthorised occupation, and that the approach of the Estate Officer as well as the District Judge in shifting the burden of proof straightaway to the objector was erroneous. It was also observed that the objector's plea that his oral evidence had not been correctly recorded should have been gone into and decided by the District Judge. On these findings the writ petition was allowed, the order of the District Judge was quashed and the matter was sent back to him for deciding the appeal afresh. Aggrieved, the Union of India has come up in appeal. 5. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the notice was not vague and that the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to proceed even though the objector had raised a title dispute. 6. Mr. Aggrieved, the Union of India has come up in appeal. 5. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the notice was not vague and that the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to proceed even though the objector had raised a title dispute. 6. Mr. D. Sanyal, appearing for the Union of India, with his usual clarity and felicity, urged that the provisions of the Evidence Act were not applicable to proceedings under this Act and that the learned Judge was not justified in holding that the map filed by the District Engineer could not be considered unless it was formally proved. We are, however, unable to accept this submission. 7. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act applies to public premises which is defined to mean "land of building belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government." Thus the h Act applies to immovable properties. It aims at evicting unauthorised occupants of public premises. Sec. 4 of the Act requires the Estate Officer to issue a notice to the unauthorised occupant to show cause why he should not be evicted, if he is of the opinion that he is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, The notice is to specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. Sec. 5 provides- "5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants :- (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Sec. 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or. any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days of the date of its publication under sub-sec. any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days of the date of its publication under sub-sec. (1), the Estate Officer or any other officer duly authorised by the Estate Officer in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary." 8. Under it the person to whom a notice has been issued under Sec. 4 is required to show cause. He is entitled to a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Estate Officer has to make an order of eviction for reasons to be recorded by him. All these incidents of the proceedings clearly establish that the order of eviction has to be passed on an objective consideration of materials adduced by the parties. The alleged unauthorised occupant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to show cause against the threatened move to evict him. 9. In the case of State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1269, the Supreme Court held that an action which affects the vested rights of a person can only be taken consistently with principles of natural justice. 10. If a person takes up the plea that he is not an unauthorised occupant of immovable property the order of his eviction would undoubtedly affect his vested rights of property. Such an order cannot be passed except consistently with the principles of natural justice. 11. If a person takes up the plea that he is not an unauthorised occupant of immovable property the order of his eviction would undoubtedly affect his vested rights of property. Such an order cannot be passed except consistently with the principles of natural justice. 12. In the present case the railway authorities attempted to establish that the objector had encroached upon railway land by relying upon the revenue papers as explained by the map prepared by the District Engineer. The District Engineer did not appear to prove the map or to be cross-examined by the objector with regard to the contents of the map. 12. In the present case the railway authorities attempted to establish that the objector had encroached upon railway land by relying upon the revenue papers as explained by the map prepared by the District Engineer. The District Engineer did not appear to prove the map or to be cross-examined by the objector with regard to the contents of the map. The Estate Officer as well as the District Judge on appeal took the map as establishing the facts mentioned in it, as to the situation of the railway land and the house built by the objector. The question is whether in the context of the facts of the case the map was material evidence which could be taken into consideration. 13. In M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 330, the question was whether the balance sheet, profit and loss account and other documents filed by the Company could be relied upon and considered by the Tribunal without those documents being properly proved. After considering several of its earlier decisions the Supreme Court observed : "But the application of the principle of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted up. On the other hand what it means is that no materials can be relied upon to establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used. When a document is produced in a Court or a Tribunal the question that naturally arises is, is it a genuine document, what are its contents and are the statements contained therein true? When the Appellant produced the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the Company, it does not by its mere production amount to a proof of it or of the truth of the entries therein. If these entries are challenged the Appellant must prove each of such entries by producing the books and speaking from the entries made therein. If a letter or other document is produced to establish some fact which is relevant to the enquiry the writer must be produced or his affidavit in respect thereof be filed and opportunity afforded to the opposite party who challenges this fact. If a letter or other document is produced to establish some fact which is relevant to the enquiry the writer must be produced or his affidavit in respect thereof be filed and opportunity afforded to the opposite party who challenges this fact. This is both in accord with the principles of natural justice as also according to the procedure under Order XIX, Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act both of which incorporate these general principles. Even if all technicalities of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable except in so far as Sec. 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the rules prescribed therein permit it, it is inconceivable that the Tribunal can act on what is not evidence such as hearsay, nor can it justify the Tribunal in basing its award on copies of documents when the originals which are in existence are not produced and proved by one of the methods either by affidavit or by witness who have executed them, if they are alive and can be produced. Again if a party wants an inspection it is incumbent on the Tribunal to give inspection in so far as that is relevant to the enquiry. The applicability of these principles are well recognised and admit of no doubt." These observations are opposite and applicable in the present case. The map prepared by the District Engineer was the sheet-anchor of the case against the objector. No attempt was made to prove it. By itself it was not admissible before the Estate Officer, even if it be held that the Evidence Act was not applicable. Without being properly proved this map could not have been relied upon. 14. We have seen the original record of the case and we find that the map of t the District Engineer which has been filed in these proceedings is not part of any Railway record and so the presumption arising under Sec. 139 of the Railways Act is not applicable. It appears that this map was prepared by the District Engineer for the purposes of this case. 15. The Estate Officer and the District Judge relied upon certain admissions alleged to have been made by the objector in his deposition. It appears that this map was prepared by the District Engineer for the purposes of this case. 15. The Estate Officer and the District Judge relied upon certain admissions alleged to have been made by the objector in his deposition. The objector had in his appeal pleaded that the Estate Officer had not correctly recorded his statement, and that the statement was not even read over or explained to him and he was not given any opportunity to sign it. These pleas should have been adjudicated (upon by) the District Judge before relying upon the so-called admissions. 16. It may be pointed out that the Act confines itself to evicting unauthorised occupants of Public Premises. It does not authorise the taking of possession of buildings constructed by the occupant over land, which alone is stated to be public premises. If it is found that the objector's house has partly encroached upon Railway land, the objector could not be ejected from the house and no order for taking possession of the house as a whole could validly be passed. The question of relief would in such a situation, need serious consideration. 17. In our view the case was not decided by the authorities below in accordance with correct legal principles. The matter was rightly sent back. 18. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.