ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition arises out of proceeding under S. 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1972. The aforesaid Act shall he referred to as U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 hereafter. 2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the disputed laud was tenancy of Smt. Kamlabai. Since under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,he disputed land was declared as surplus the State o f U.P. succeeded in getting possession over the disputed land in the year 1963. Thereafter the present petitioner filed a suit under 5.229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the State of U.P. That suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1965. In the year 1975 proceedings under S. 5 of the U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 have been initiated against the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court have negatived the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the occupation of the petitioner over the disputed land is not unauthorised hence the proceedings against him are wholly unwarranted and his eviction from the disputed land as ordered by the courts below is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. The learned counsel for the State has tried to support the impugned judgments. According to him when the State of U.P. succeeded in getting possession over the disputed land under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act the revenue court could not decree the petitioner's claim in the suit under S. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. hence the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court were fully justified in negativing the claim of the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. Unauthorised occupation has been defined in S. 2(g) of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 as below : " 'Unauthorised occupation'. hence the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court were fully justified in negativing the claim of the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. Unauthorised occupation has been defined in S. 2(g) of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 as below : " 'Unauthorised occupation'. in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which or the capacity in which he was allowed to hold or occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever and also includes continuance in occupation in the circumstances specified in sub-sec. (1) of S. 7, and a person shall not, merely by reason of the fact that he had paid any amount as rent, be deemed to be in authorised occupation." 6. The Prescribed Authority in its order dated 15-7-1975 has observed as below :- Kishori Lal ko is prakar is araji par koi Adhikar nahin hai tatha unke dwara J.O. 11 ke Nyayalaya me prapta ki gayee decree koi mahatwa nahin rakhti hai, kyonki woh unke adhikar kshetra ke bahar tha? Aur aisi decree ya adesh jo adhikar kshetra ke bahar kiya gaya ho mahatwa nahin hota hai, ewam Sri Kishori Lal ka sirdar diya gair kanuni Hai. Atah Kishori Lal S/o Gulab Chandra is vivadit Bhumi par jo Sarvajanik bhugrahadi hai, par anadhikrit adhysan me hai." 7. To my mind the observation of the Prescribed Authority is patently erroneous. It is incorrect to observe that the decree passed by J.O. was without jurisdiction. It is quite possible that the decree passed by the J.O. may not be a correct and legal decree but to term that decree as without jurisdiction is patently erroneous. 8. The appellate authority has posed the question as to what would be the impact of the decision under Sections 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act passed subsequently after the aforesaid plot was declared surplus under the Ceiling Act and in para 6 of its judgment it has made the following observation : "....S. 14 of the Ceiling Act precludes the jurisdiction of any other Court to question the propriety of the order passed therein. Thus the subsequent order of the learned Commissioner declaring the appellant sirdar of the aforesaid plot cannot create any right or title of the appellant in respect of the aforesaid land. The appellant had been claiming his possession over the aforesaid land ever before the Prescribed Authority and so the damages was rightly imposed upon him and he is also liable to be evicted from the aforesaid land as the same has vested in the State free from all encumbrances and the appellant's right, if there was any, had extinguished." 9. I think that the appellate authority has misunderstood the scope of S. 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and has patently erred in observing that the subsequent order of the learned Commissioner declaring the appellant as sirdar of the aforesaid plot cannot create any right or title in the appellant in respect of the aforesaid land. 10. In the latter revenue court litigation it was open to the State of U.P. to rake up the plea that the revenue court could not go behind the decision of Ceiling authorities but it did not rake up that plea and the revenue court proceeded to decide the claims of the parties regarding the disputed land and gave judgment for the petitioner in the year 1965. The present proceedings giving rise to the writ petition had been initiated in the year 1975. In the circumstances of this case it is difficult to say that the possession of the petitioner is unauthorised when a decree recognising the claim of the petitioner between the parties is existing. It was open to the State of U.P. to have got the decree set aside in competent proceedings, but so long as the decree stands the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land cannot be termed as unauthorised occupation. 11. It was open to the State of U.P. to have got the decree set aside in competent proceedings, but so long as the decree stands the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land cannot be termed as unauthorised occupation. 11. In the circumstances of the present case there is one valid order in favour of the State of U.P. in the proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and another decree in a suit under S. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in favour of the present petitioner and against the State of U.P. When two contrary orders exist in favour of the parties, the latter one should prevail and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into account by the subordinate authorities. They have patently erred in holding that the decree passed by the revenue court is without jurisdiction and they have failed to make distinction between the wrong or illegal order and the order without jurisdiction. Moreover, the perusal of Annexure SA-2 indicates that the plea that the disputed land being subject matter of Ceiling litigation vested in the State of U.P. was accepted by the Trial court but was repelled by the appellate court. In such a circumstance it was obligatory on the part of the State of U.P. to have challenged the judgment of the appellate court in revenue litigation and when it has failed to challenge that judgment it cannot be permitted to take proceedings under s. 5 of the U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972. When in title suit a party fails it is against all canons of justice to permit the parties to take recourse to summary proceedings. Viewed from this angle also I find that the order of eviction of the petitioner is wholly unjustified and illegal in the circumstances of the present case. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment contained in Annexure 1' and the certified copy of the judgment of the appellate court contained in Annexure'3' are hereby quashed and the proceedings under S. 5 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 against the petitioner is hereby dropped. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment contained in Annexure 1' and the certified copy of the judgment of the appellate court contained in Annexure'3' are hereby quashed and the proceedings under S. 5 of U.P. Act No. 22 of 1972 against the petitioner is hereby dropped. The State of U.P. can take recourse to the provisions of S. 5 of U.P. Act No. 22-of 1972 against the petitioner only when it succeeds in getting the revenue court decree in favour of the petitioner quashed or set aside in a competent proceedings. There would be no order as to costs.