S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution an order directing summary eviction of the petitioner for the disputed land and also directing him to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 82 500 under the relevant provisions of the Public Premises Eviction of unauthorised occupants Act 1971 the Act for short and as confirmed by the appellate authority has been brought in challenge. A few relevant facts leading to this petition may be stated at the outset. The disputed land bearing S. No. 1703 paiki situated on the outskirts of Mehsana town admeasuring 2 hectares 15 acres and 50 sq. mts. belonged to one Navnitlal Amthalal Shah. The said land other survey numbers adjoining to this land were proposed for acquisition by the Western railway for the purpose of construction of residential quarters for the railway employees. or this purposes. notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in 1966. Thereafter it was followed by a notification under sec. 6 of the said Act. Proceedings for deciding compensation amount were also initiated hereafter and an award was passed on 19-4-1970. The awarded amount was paid to the owner of the land. It is the case of the respondents that possession of the land was also taken by the railway officers on 23-6-1971 from the original owner and that some time thereafter the petitioner trespassed upon the disputed land which is part of the acquire land and came ill to unauthorised occupation of the same. Under these circumstances he was sought to the evicated from the land in question under the Act. Notice was issued to the petitioner which is at annexure C to the petition calling upon him to show cause why he should not be evicated from the disputed land as he was in unauthorised occupation. Thereafter the petitioner was heard and ultimately the petitioner was ordered to be evicated the disputed land on the finding reached that he had no legal right to remain in possession of the acquired land and he was a mere trepasser. As noted earlier the appeal filed by the petitioner also failed before the learned Assistant Judge. So far as the question of damages was concerned the estate officer being the competent authority took the view that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. As noted earlier the appeal filed by the petitioner also failed before the learned Assistant Judge. So far as the question of damages was concerned the estate officer being the competent authority took the view that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 82 500 by way of damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the disputed land and he was ordered to pay it by 12 equal instalments. Even that part of the order has been confirmed by the appellate court. (Before the Honble Court the plaintiff undertook to vacate the disputed land on or before 31/05/1985) ( 2 ) MR. Jani next contended that in any case the order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 89 500 by way of damages is patently bad. There were two plunks to his second challenge. Firstly he contended that the requisite notice under sec. 7 (3) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the order of damages should not be passed against him was never issued to him and therefore the order of damages as passed by the competent authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority would be null and void. Secondly it was contended that even otherwise the authorities below have fixed the damages amount without considering all the relevant facts and circumstances and in an and hoc manner. In my view both the aforesaid planks of the second submission are well made out. ( 3 ) SEC. 7 of the Act reads as under:" (1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises the estate officer may by order require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (2) Where any person is or has at any time been in unauthorised occupation of any public premises the estate officer may having regards to such of assessment to damages as may be prescribed assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may by order require that person to pay the damages with such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. to While making an order under sub-sec. (1) in sub-sec. to While making an order under sub-sec. (1) in sub-sec. (2) the estate officer may direct that arrears of rent or as the case may be damages shall be payable with simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed not being a rate excusing the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interests Act 1978 (3) No order under sub-sec (1) or sub-sec. 1 shall be made against any person until after calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice why such order should not be made and until his objections it any and any evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the estate officer". ( 4 ) A mere look at sub-sec. (3) of sec. 7 shows that no order for damage under sub-sec. (2) could have been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why such order should not be passed against him. In the present case no such notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner. The only notice issued against his at annexure C to the petition was a notice calling upon him to show cause why he should not be evicted from the land in question as he was in unauthorised occupation. The said notice was issued to him in pursuance of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 4 of the Act. Mr. Bhatt for the respondents could not point out any other notice which might have been served on the petitioner. The order fixing damages therefore must necessarily fall through on this ground alone. However even on merits it must be held that the authorities below have not considered the relevant statutory X requirements before deciding the amount of damages. All that the competent authority stated in para 11 of the impugned order is that the petitioner received illegal gains from the use and occupation of the railway land during unauthorised occupation and as such he is liable to pay the damages to the railway administration for the use and occupation of railway land. So far as the appellate authority is concerned in paras 16 and 17 of the judgment it only endorsed the reasoning of the competent authority. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. So far as the appellate authority is concerned in paras 16 and 17 of the judgment it only endorsed the reasoning of the competent authority. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 enjoins upon the competent authority to follow the prescribed principles for assess of damages before damages could be computed as payable by the unauthorised occupant of public premises. Mr. Jani submitted that the prescribed principles are found in rule 8 of the rules. The relevant rule is found in the Public Premises Eviction of unauthorised occupants Rules 1971 Sec. 18 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Accordingly the Central Government has framed these rules. They were published in the Government of India gazette extraordinary part II sec. 3 sub-division (1) dated 18-12-1971. ( 5 ) AMONGST these rules relevant rule 8 reads as under:"in assessing damages for unauthorised use and occupation to any public premises the estate officer shall take consideration the following matters namely (a) the purpose and the period for which the public premises were in unauthorised occupation. (b) the nature size and standard of the accommodation available in such premises. (c) the rent that would been realised if the premises had been let on rent for the period of unauthorised occupation to a private person. (d) any damages done to the premises during the period of unauthorised occupation. (e) any other matter relevant for the purpose of assessing the damages. Now it is obvious that this rule was totally observed in breach by the competent authority while assessing in an ad hoc manner the damages payable by the petitioner the same infirmity inners also in the appellate order. Hence even the second plank of the second submission of Mr. Jani is well sustained. Petition partly allowed. .