JUDGMENT : K.P. Singh, J. This writ petition arises out of proceedings u/s 5 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972). 2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that it has been alleged that about 247 sq. ft. land situate in Mohalla Kucha Langar Khana Nazul land of the Municipality Rampur was in unauthorised occupation of Yasin (the present Petitioner), hence he was liable to ejectment and also liable to pay damages from 18-12-75. It appears that the disputed land was allotted to Yasin on 6-8-1975 for one year. The allotment was not finally approved, hence it was alleged that the cancellation of the allotment was served upon Yasin, Petitioner and his occupation of the disputed land became unauthorised in the aforesaid circumstances from 18-12-1975. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner after serving notice upon him contemplated by Section 4 of the U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972. 3. The Petitioner filed objection and denied the allegations against him and justified his occupation over the disputed land. On the basis of the claim and the counter claim the Prescribed Authority framed issues on 12-7-1976 and gave judgment against the Petitioner as is evident from the judgment dated 30-9-1980 contained in Annexure 1' attached with the writ petition. Against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority the Petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate court through Its judgment dated 2-7-1981 contained in Annexure 2' (though not marked as Annexure 2') and is attached with the writ petition. A certified copy of the judgment of the appellate court is also attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the subordinate authorities the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended before me that the proceedings against the Petitioner were wholly void and they should be quashed. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner no notice contemplated by Section 4 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 was served upon the Petitioner, hence the proceeding Is void and In pursuance of such proceedings the Petitioner could not be evicted from the disputed land. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner no notice contemplated by Section 4 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 was served upon the Petitioner, hence the proceeding Is void and In pursuance of such proceedings the Petitioner could not be evicted from the disputed land. In this connection the learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to the provisions of Section 4 read with Rule 3 and the forms appended to the back under the aforesaid Rule framed under the provisions of Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972. 5. Second contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that on the findings of the appellate court that the cancellation of the allotment of disputed land to the Petitioner was not communicated to him, hence his occupation over the disputed land did not become unauthorised on 18-12-1975. The proceedings against the Petitioner should have been dropped, but the appellate court has acted illegally in confirming the judgment of the Prescribed Authority so far as it related to the eviction of the Petitioner. 6. Third contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the notice u/s 4 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 is mandatory and the form of the notice attached to the Rule should be meticulously followed and if the notice does not comply with the aforesaid provisions, it should be held bad and the proceedings in pursuance thereto should be held as void and also should be dropped. 7. The learned Counsel for the State has tried to support the impugned judgments. According to him the Petitioner was really in unauthorised occupation of the disputed land on the date of decisions by the subordinate authorities, hence his eviction is imperative and the proceedings should not be dropped at his instance. The learned Counsel for the State has tried to reiterate the reasons given in the impugned judgments in support of his contentions. 8. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the provisions of the relevant Act and Rules and I have also examined the notice alleged to have been served upon the Petitioner and attached with the counter affidavit. The number of the Annexure is not indicated but it is second to the counter affidavit. The notice is dated 11-3-1976. The number of the Annexure is not indicated but it is second to the counter affidavit. The notice is dated 11-3-1976. The perusal of the notice indicates that it is not a proper notice as contemplated by the provisions of Section 4 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972. The authorities should have given the ground for evicting the Petitioner. Mere mention that the ground for eviction is the complaint by the Collector, Rampur is not a proper notice in my opinion. Moreover, the land was allotted to the Petitioner for a period of one year on 6-8-1975 and the notice is dated 11-3-1976 and on the finding of the appellate court the cancellation of the allotment was not communicated to the Petitioner, therefore, no cause of action had arisen for serving notice upon the Petitioner on 11-3-1976. The proceedings to pursuance of the notice dated 11-3-1976 against the Petitioner is wholly unjustified and deserves to be quashed. 9. Section 4 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 reads as below: (1) If the Prescribed Authority, either of its own motion or on an application or report received on behalf of the State Government or the corporate authority is of the opinion that any person are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted the Prescribed Authority 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. (2) The notice shall- (a) Specify the ground on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made, and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons, who are, or may be, in occupation of, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than 10 days from the date of issue thereof. (3) .... (4) .... 10. In my opinion according to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the above-mentioned Act, it is incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to specify that on the date of the notice the person is in unauthorised occupation of public premises. (3) .... (4) .... 10. In my opinion according to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the above-mentioned Act, it is incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to specify that on the date of the notice the person is in unauthorised occupation of public premises. In the present case on the finding of the appellate court that the allotment expired on 5-8-1976, therefore, the Petitioner became unauthorised occupant on 6-8-1976, I think that it cannot be said that the Petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the disputed land on the date of notice. It appears to me that the appellate authority has misunderstood the scope of the provisions of Section 4 of the above mentioned Act and has patently erred in confirming the judgment of the Prescribed Authority regarding eviction of the Petitioner from the disputed land. The appellate authority has failed to examine the provisions of Section 4 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 whereby it is necessary that the cause of action should have arisen before the issue of notice by the Prescribed Authority. The perusal of Rule 3 and the forms attached thereto also leads to the same inference that on the date of issuing notice the person should be in unauthorised occupation of the public premises. On the finding of the appellate authority the possession of the Petitioner became unauthorised from 6-8-1976, I think the proceedings deserves to be quashed. 11. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgments of the subordinate authorities are hereby quashed and it is open to the authorities concerned to issue a fresh notice as contemplated by the provisions of the Act and the Rules, if they want to evict the Petitioner. The Petitioner should be evicted from the disputed land strictly in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs.