JUDGMENT R.B.Mehrotra, J. 1. A notice under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, dated 13-10-1976 was served on the present petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made against the petitioner in respect of the property in dispute in the present matter. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed his reply and mainly contended that the land in dispute is not public premises within the meaning of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. By order, dated 2nd March, 1977, the Estate Officer directed the eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed on 8-4-1978. The matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer again, vide his order, dated 11-12- 1979 directed eviction of the petitioner. This order was again set aside in appeal by order, dated 21-10-1983 and the matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer for deciding it again, after affording an opportunity to the parties concerned for adducing evidence In the third round, the Estate Officer again directed eviction of the petitioner, vide order, dated 20-2-1985. This order has been affirmed in appeal vide order, dated 11-2-1986 In the present writ petition, both the aforesaid orders, namely, the order of the Estate Officer, dated 20-2-1985 and the order of the III Addl District Judge, Bareilly, dated 11-11-1986 dismissing the petitioners appeal are under challenge. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the property in dispute is not a public premises as defined under the Act. The petitioner has also contended that the burden of proving the premises to be a public premises was on the Union of India and the Union of India has failed to discharge the said burden by proving that the property in dispute is a public premises. 3. In reply to the aforesaid contentions, the counsel for the Union of INdia has contended : (i) Admittedly the petitioner is out of possession. The petitioner admits that he is in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question, as such equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia should not be exercised in his favour. (ii) The petitioner has taken the property in dispute on lease from Union of INdia. The petitioner admits that he is in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question, as such equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia should not be exercised in his favour. (ii) The petitioner has taken the property in dispute on lease from Union of INdia. The petitioner is estopped from challenging the rights of the Union of INdia under section 116 of the Evidence Act. (iii) The burden of proving that the property in dispute was not public premises, in the facts of the case, was on the petitioner and not on the Union of INdia in view of section 110 of the Evidence Act. (iv) It is established from the evidence on record that the property in dispute was requisitioned by Union of INdia and as such the property comes within the definition of 'Public premises' as defined under the Act. 4. The necessary facts for the decision of the case are that the petitioner was granted the lease of the disputed land comprising of plots no. 160 to 167 and 179, situate in village Fatehganj East, pergana Faridpur, district Bareilly for a period of five years with effect from 1-6-1966, The petitioner did not vacate the plot in dispute after the expiry of the period of lease. Thereafter a notice under section 4 (1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. As stated earlier, twice the Estate Officer directed eviction of the petitioner and twice the petitioners appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer for re-decision. However, the petitioner was evicted in pursuance of the order of the Estate Officer, dated 11-12-1979. The petitioner sought restitution of possession on the ground that his appeal has been allowed but the said restitution application was rejected. The admitted position is that the petitioner is out of possession over the land in dispute. 'Public premises is defined under section 2 (e) of the Act. The relevant portion of the said definition reads as under : "(e) "Public premises" means. The admitted position is that the petitioner is out of possession over the land in dispute. 'Public premises is defined under section 2 (e) of the Act. The relevant portion of the said definition reads as under : "(e) "Public premises" means. (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by that Government, whether before or after the commencement of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980 under the control of the secretariat of either houses of parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that secretariat;........". 5. The relevant material which was brought on record by the Union of India for proving that the property in dispute is public premises was : (1) true copy of the Military land register showing the disputed plots to be recorded therein. (2) true copy of the Gazette Notification No. 235, dated 1-4-1937 issued under section 172 of the Government of India Act, 1935, (3) true copy of corrigendum no. 336, dated 9-3-1940 correcting the Gazette notification, dated 1-4-1937 and (4) true copy of corrigendum no. 802, dated 17-5-1941 correcting the aforesaid notification. 6. IT is not disputed that in the aforesaid notification issued under section 172 of the Government of India Act the plots in dispute had been shown to have been retained by the Government of India, under section 172 of the Government of India Act, 1935. 802, dated 17-5-1941 correcting the aforesaid notification. 6. IT is not disputed that in the aforesaid notification issued under section 172 of the Government of India Act the plots in dispute had been shown to have been retained by the Government of India, under section 172 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 172 of the Government of India Act, 1935 reads as under ; "172-(1) All lands and buildings which immediately before the commencement of part III of this Act were vested in his Majesty for the purposes of the Government of India shall as from that date- (a) in the case of land and buildings which are situate in a province, vest in his Majesty for the purposes of the Government of that province unless they were than used, otherwise than under a tenancy agreement between the Governor General in Council and the Government of that province, for purposes which thereafter will be purposes of the Federal Government or of His Majesty Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States, or unless they are lands and buildings formerly used for such purposes as aforesaid, or intended or formerly intended to be so used, and are certified by the Governor- General in Council or, as the case may be, His Majesty's representative, to have been retained for future use for such purposes, or to have been retained temporarily for the purpose of more advantageous disposal by sale or otherwise : 7. The extract from Gazette Notification Defence Department Judicial, New Delhi, dated 1-4-1937 no. 235 is as under : "For the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 172 of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Governor General in Council is pleased to certify that the land specified in the Schedule hereto annexed, together with buildings situated thereon, have been retained by the Governor General in Council for future use for purposes which will thereafter be purposes of the Federal Government." 8. The petitioner on the other hand has also filed the extracts of certain land records wherein the land in dispute is recorded as the property of Zamindar A particular reference may be made to paper no. 24 prepared under rule 35 of paragraph 32 of the Land Records Manual wherein in column no. The petitioner on the other hand has also filed the extracts of certain land records wherein the land in dispute is recorded as the property of Zamindar A particular reference may be made to paper no. 24 prepared under rule 35 of paragraph 32 of the Land Records Manual wherein in column no. 6 of the said document it was mentioned that "the Zamindars are owners of grove and land, Military government road exists and the entries are camping ground of the Army. The Government has no concern with the land revenue of the land collected by the Zamindars and the trees which are dried up are taken and sold away by the owners but they are not entitled to cut away every tree. For about last 30 years since 1304F the land is in use of camping Ground of Army. " (English version of the original Urdu entry reproduced in the appellate order). On a consideration of the aforesaid evidence, the appellate court came to the conclusion that on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, it is proved that the plots in dispute were used to be Military camping ground and became public premises. The appellate court accordingly upheld the order or the Estate Officer holding the disputed land to be the public premises. 9. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that merely recording of the disputed land in Military land records and merely on the basis of the notification issued under section 172 of the Government of India Act, 1935 will not make the land to be a public premises as defined in the Act. It is not proved from the aforesaid evidence that the plots in dispute belonged to or were taken on lease or were requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government. 10. It is not proved from the aforesaid evidence that the plots in dispute belonged to or were taken on lease or were requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government. 10. The Prescribed Authority in its judgment has relied upon the evidence of the petitioner themselves for coming to the conclusion that the plots in dispute were requisitioned by the Government of India and has recorded a finding : "THE appellant has himself filed a copy of the application by Vishwambhar Nath Gupta ;and Prithvi Nath Agarwal through which they had prayed for de-requisitioning of the land in dispute." The aforesaid finding clearly shows that by Gazette notification, dated 1-4-1937, the Government of India requisitioned the aforesaid property from the owners and subsequently the owners themselves moved the Government for de-requisitioning of the said property. Though the words used in the Government of India Gazette notification are that the property has been retained but there seems to be substance in the submission of Sri Harkauli, the learned counsel for the Union of India, that the word 'retained' should be interpreted to mean "requisitioned" as in the context of Government of India Act, the word 'retained' meant 'requisitioned' and was taken over by the Government of India for all practical purposes. The requisitioning is also taking over of the property of some body. Retaining was also for the purposes of taking over of the property for the purposes of camping ground The Gazette notification issued by the Government of India clearly shows that the property was requisitioned by the Government of India and was retained for the purposes of Federal Government. Even otherwise the appellate court and the Estate Officer both having recorded a finding on the basis of the aforesaid evidence that the property in dispute was a public premises, it cannot be said that the aforesaid finding suffers from any error of law. At best, it is a question of appreciation of evidence and if on the basis of the evidence on record, the two courts below came to the conclusion that the Government of India has proved the premises to be public premises, it is not a case where this court should interfere with the aforesaid finding in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the fact that I have come to the conclusion that both the courts below have recorded a finding that from the evidence on record it was established that the land in dispute was a public premises, the other arguments advanced on both the sides do not call for any consideration. The Government of India has proved by filing cogent evidence that the land in dispute was public premises and the Estate Officer as well as the appellate court has held on the basis of the aforesaid evidence that the land; in dispute was a public premises. The petitioner has been rightly dispossessed from the property in question. No other point subsists. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.