ORDER K. P. Singh, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Allahdin (unauthorised occupant) against the order passed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 for evicting the petitioner from land measuring 29 Sq. yards situated in plot No. 389. The proceedings giving rise to the present writ petition were' initiated through Ann. I attached with the writ petition in the year 1970. The opposite party No. 3 in the present writ petition claims the disputed land as its property and has alleged that the present petitioner had entered into unauthorised occupation of the disputed land in the year 1960 without the consent or permission of the opposite party No. 3 in the present writ petition, therefore, the prayer for possession over the disputed land against the petitioner was made. 2. The petitioner has contested the claim of the opposite party No. 3 in the present writ petition (Nagar Palika, Aligarh) as is evident from Ann. II attached with the writ petition. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner had not made any construction and that the construction existing over the disputed land has been 100 years old and that the claim of the Nagar Palika was barred by time. It has also been stated that the petitioner's construction does not exist over the disputed 29 Sq. yards of the land claimed by the Nagar Palika and various other pleas were taken to negative the claim of the opposite party No. 3, i.e. the Nagar Palika (see Ann. II attached with the writ petition). 4. It appears that on 18-10-1979 the prescribed authority gave judgment against the petitioner and aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was allowed by the appellate court as is evident from Ann. VII attached with the writ petition. Thereafter the prescribed authority again gave judgment against the petitioner as is evident from Ann. XI attached with the writ petition. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority dated 10-5-1984 preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 28-1-1985 as is evident from Ann. XIII attached with the writ petition. 5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. XIII attached with the writ petition. 5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 have patently erred in evicting the petitioner from the disputed land in summary proceedings contemplated by Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. 7. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner was not served with proper notice under S. 4 of the aforesaid Act, therefore, the proceedings giving rise to the present writ petition should be quashed. 8. Third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the existing construction over the disputed land has been since 100 years back, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 to have recorded categorical findings about the claim of the opposite party No. 3 within time. Since the findings are not clear and categoricals therefore, the 'eviction of the petitioner from the disputed area is wholly bad in law and the impugned judgment should be quashed. 9. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has tried to support the impugned judgments. According to him the petitioner had not claimed any possession over the plot No. 389 claimed by the Nagar Palika, therefore, when the construction of the petitioner was found over a portion of plot No. 389 the eviction of the petitioner was rightly made by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and their orders need not be quashed in writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Second submission made by learned counsel for the opposite party is to the effect that proper notice contemplated by the provisions of S. 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and R. 4 thereunder was served upon the petitioner and on earlier occasion the case was sent back by the appellate court only for deciding the location of the area in dispute, therefore, the plea raised on behalf of the present petitioner should not be entertained and it should be answered against the petitioner. 11. 11. The third submission made on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 is to the effect that the petitioner had not claimed any possession over the plot No. 389 belonging to Nagar Palika. Aligarh, therefore, no question of limitation would arise in the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the writ petition and the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the question of limitation should be repelled. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and I have also examined the decisions cited by them. In my opinion the opposite party has patently erred in dealing with the question of limitation involved in the case. The learned Judge in para 3 of the impugned judgment has noted the contention of the present petitioner that the case of the Nagar Palika was barred by limitation and in pars 10 of the impugned judgment the learned Judge has made the following observation : "......it is the statement of the petitioner that he does not know whether plot No. 389 is Nazul land or not. It has been the case of the appellant that plot No. 389 belonged to the persons from whom he purchased the house. He simply claimed that he has not made any encroachment on the land in question. It might be that the encroachment in question had been made by the persons from whom he had purchased the house. There is, however, nothing on record to show that the possession over the land in question was hostile and those persons had perfected their title by adverse possession. Junior Engineer has found one Kothri and Chabutara and a door constructed on the land in question. The circumstance that he did not measure the house of the appellant is of no help to the appellant when it had been found on the basis of survey from fixed points that the land in question form part of plot No. 389". 13. To my mind the appellate Court has not approached the problem from correct angle and has patently erred in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 14. From a perusal of the judgments it is evident that the existing constructions over the disputed area stand since 65 or 100 years. 13. To my mind the appellate Court has not approached the problem from correct angle and has patently erred in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 14. From a perusal of the judgments it is evident that the existing constructions over the disputed area stand since 65 or 100 years. Therefore, it was , he bounded duty of the appellate court to have recorded a categorical finding whether the Nagar Palika could get possession over the disputed area and whether its claim is within time specially when the case of Nagar Palika is to the effect that the constructions had been made without the consent and permission of the Nagar Palika and if the constructions over the disputed area have been standing for the last 65 or 100 years, whether the Nagar Palika can get retie of possession against the petitioner. 15. It is also noteworthy that when the Nagar Palika had alleged a cause of action for making unauthorised constructions in the year 1960 and if that allegation does not appear prima facie to be correct in view of the constructions being old more than 60 years whether the opposite party No. 3 can get relief in the proceedings giving rise to the present writ petition against the petitioner. On the finding of the appellate court the encroachment appears to have been made by persons from whom the petitioner had purchased the house, therefore, even if wrong facts had been alleged by the Nagar Pali for getting relief of eviction of the petitioner it was necessary on the part of the appellate court to have examined the claim of the Naga Palika whether it has established the cause o action alleged. I think that this aspect of the matter has escaped the notice of the appellate court. 16. A Division Bench of this court in 1975 All LJ 373, Union of India v. Babu Lal Gupta while dealing with similar situation has made the following observation in pars 15 of the aforesaid ruling : "It maybe 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. 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 the present case the Nagar Palika wants eviction of the petitioner from the disputed area over which the existing construction has been standing for the last 65 or 100 years, therefore, a serious question arises as to whether the petitioner can be evicted from the constructions specially when he has not made the constructions, rather he has purchased the constructions. In short, the appellate court has failed to examine relevant and material questions involved in the case, therefore, I think that the appellate court has patently erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. As the case is going back to the appellate court for re- examining the material points involved therein, I do not consider it necessary to deal with various contentions raised before me. It would be proper for the appellate court to deal with the claims of the parties categorically and strictly in accordance with law hereafter. 18. Moreover as regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that proper notice contemplated by S. 4 and R. 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 was not served upon the petitioner, therefore, the proceedings should be quashed, I think that in the facts and circumstances of the present case this plea is not now open to the petitioner specially when he has got opportunity to contest the claim of the opposite party No. 3, i.e. the Nagar Palika, Aligarh and the case had been remanded by the appellate court at the first instance. It would be too late in the day to accept such a plea at this stage in the exercise of powers by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard ,fails. 19. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 28-1-1985 contained in Ann. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard ,fails. 19. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 28-1-1985 contained in Ann. XIII attached with the writ petition is hereby quashed and the appellate court is directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner and answer the relevant and material points mentioned above before giving relief to the opposite party No. 3. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.