JUDGMENT A. N. Varma, J. 1. BY means of this petition petitioner has assailed the validity of the proceedings started against him by the Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. THE relevant facts are that the Divisional Forest Officer Varanasi approached the Prescribed Authority under the Act on the assertion that the petitioner had illegally occupied a portion of land which has been declared under the Indian Forest Act to be a reserved forest area. THEreupon the Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the petitioner, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. THE petitioner filed objections against this notice and also adduced evidence. THE case of the petitioner was firstly that the disputed premises did not fall within the reserved forest area and secondly he was not an unauthorised occupant inasmuch as he was continuing in lawful possession over the premises for the last more than thirty years on the basis of patta. The Prescribed Authority over-ruled the objections of the petitioner and passed an order directing the eviction of the petitioner as well as payment of certain amounts by way of damages for use and occupation. 3. AGGRIEVED the petitioner filed an appeal but without any success. 4. THE petitioner is challenging the legality of the aforesaid two orders. THE petitioner contends that the entire proceedings started against the petitioner under the aforesaid Act are null and void as he was not served with a valid notice as required under section 4 of the Act as well as the Rules framed under the Act. THE petitioner also contends that the finding of the respondents. nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation over the premises in question is manifestly unsustainable in law. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the premises in question are within what has been declared to be reserved forest area under the Indian Forest Act and the petitioner's objections against the declaration of the area claiming that he was cultivating the disputed land from before 1966 were expressly rejected. The petitioner did not file any appeal against that order, consequently it is not open to the petitioner now to contend that the disputed premises do not form part of any reserved forest area. The petitioner did not file any appeal against that order, consequently it is not open to the petitioner now to contend that the disputed premises do not form part of any reserved forest area. It is also mentioned that the petitioner made an attempt to claim the benefit of a Government Order dated 1-11-1975 mentioned in Clause (j) of para 3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents under which occupants of public premises were entitled under certain circumstance to have their possession regularised. That attempt of the petitioner failed as he was unable to satisfy the concerned authorities that he was entitled to the benefit of that Government Order. 5. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the first contention of the petitioner is well founded. The notice which was issued to the petitioner under section 4 of the Act read as follows; " Notice under section 4 of U. P. Public Premises (E. U O.) Act, 1972, in the name Vikarama s/o Ayodhya r/o Vanbhikhampur where as an application on behalf of the U. P. Estate has been made by DFO Varanasi dt/- 18-12-1973 alleging therein that you are in unauthorised occupation of forest land as shown in the map annexed with the notice and has requested for your eviction whereas said land is public premises. Whereas I Prescribed Authority is of the opinion that the ground alleged for your eviction is good ground. I call upon you to appear on 16-1-74 to show cause why you should not be conjected from the said land." Section 4 of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act provides that if the Estate Officer is of the opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the Estate Officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 further provides that the notice shall specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. The form of the notice under sub-section (1) of Clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act has been prescribed under the Rules framed under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 further provides that the notice shall specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. The form of the notice under sub-section (1) of Clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act has been prescribed under the Rules framed under the Act. The relevant form, namely Form-A reads as follows : "Whereas I, the undersigned, am of the opinion, on the grounds specified below that you are in unauthorised occupation of the Public Premises mentioned in the Schedule below and that you should be evicted from the said premises ; GROUNDS Now, therefore, in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, I hereby call upon you to show cause on or before the......why such an order of eviction should not be made. And in pursuance of Clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4, I also call upon you to appear before me in person or through a duly authorised representative capable to answer all material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence which you intend to produce in support of the cause shown, on.........at.........for personal hearing. In case, you fail to appear on the said date and time, the case will be decided exparte." The language of Section 4 is clear and explicit. It required that the notice shall specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. It is further obvious from the scheme of the Act that a valid notice under section 4 is condition precedent for an order of eviction to be passed against unauthorised occupants. It is also apparent that the notice is required under section 4 to be in the prescribed form and has to be issued in the manner laid down. 6. LEARNED counsel appearing for the State of U. P. before the Courts below fairly conceded that the impugned notice issued under section 4 of the Act was not a valid notice and was not in the prescribed form as it did not disclose the ground upon which it has been issued. Before us however the learned Standing Counsel contended that the notice, if read as a whole, clearly confirmed to the requirements of Section 4 of the Act. We do not agree. Before us however the learned Standing Counsel contended that the notice, if read as a whole, clearly confirmed to the requirements of Section 4 of the Act. We do not agree. The notice has been quoted above and it is obvious that a vital requirement of Section 4 is missing. The notice does not profess, directly or indirectly, to state the ground upon which the eviction of the petitioner is being sought. In our opinion the provisions of Section 4 are mandatory and a valid notice specifying the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made to sine qua non for an order of eviction. We do not agree with the learned Standing Counsel that the notice if read as a whole can be construed to be a valid notice under section 4 of the Act. It does not disclose the grounds on which eviction is sought. It is not in the prescribed form either. The defects invalidate the notice ab initio. 7. WE are fortified in the view we are disposed to take, by a decision of the Orissa High Court Sheikh Khalilur Rehman v. Estate Officer, 1977 Orissa 201. In this case the Orissa High Court was considering the provisions of Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, Section 4 of which was in pari materia with Section 4 of corresponding U. P. Enactment, namely, the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Orissa High Court observed that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 read with Rules confer jurisdiction and authority on the Estate Officer to evict unauthorised occupants of government land only after giving such occupant an adequate opportunity to be heard against eviction by means of a valid notice. The High Court further observed that the requirements are mandatory in character. 8. WITH respect, we entirely agree with the above statement of law and hold that the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under section 4 of the Act is clearly invalid and any proceedings commenced thereon are liable to be quashed, founded, as they are, on such a notice. The learned appellate court has wrongly observed that even though the notice is invalid, the participation of the petitioner in the proceedings had the effect of curing the invalidity of the notice. The learned appellate court has wrongly observed that even though the notice is invalid, the participation of the petitioner in the proceedings had the effect of curing the invalidity of the notice. The notice being void ab initio any participation by the petitioner in the proceedings commenced thereon could not cure the inherent infirmities from which the notice suffered. We however wish to make it clear that we are quashing the impugned orders only on the ground that the notice under section 4 of the Act was invalid and not on any other ground. We should not, therefore, be taken to have expressed any opinion on the other findings recorded by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, 9. THE result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore is that the impugned orders passed by the respondents nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the respondents to take fresh proceedings after issuing a valid notice to the petitioner under the aforesaid Act. 10. IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 3-8-78 and 8-2-77 passed respectively by the respondents nos. 1 and 2 are quashed. There will however be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.