RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. ( 1 ) THESE eight cases are writ petitions seeking a writ of certiorari impugning orders of the Estate Officer/prescribed Authority under the U. P. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1972 and, thereafter, the order in appeal of the First and Second Additional District Judge, Allahabad, challenging the order of the Estate Officer holding the petitioners as unauthorised occupants and, in effect, their eviction from Bajaja Road Patri, west of the municipal market in the city of Allahabad. The orders of the Estate Officer, dated 11-11-1976 in Writ Petition No. 5945 of 1978 and dated 23-3-1978 in the other connected writ petitions, and the orders in appeal, dated 241-1978 in the first writ petition and dated 2-91978 in connected writ petitions of the Second Additional District Judge, concerned, are common to the record and, thus, the matter was heard with common arguments on behalf of the petitioners replied on behalf of the respondents and the closing submissions on behalf of the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE facts as have been presented in the writ petitions are not exactly correct so as to correspondent to the record of the Estate Officer and the appeal before the Additional District Judge, concerned. Thus, the Court required counsel for the parties to stick to the record of the court below as the matters are being examined on a certiorari action. The facts given by both the petitioners and the respondents are not disputed. On the location of the site occupied by the petitioners the placement indicated is common. The Nagar Mahapalika produced the original survey map of the area showing the sites the petitioners occupy. ( 3 ) IN the old quarter of the city, immediately behind the Clock Tower, there was a municipal market. One part of the municipal market had the vegetable market and the other a hackney carriage stand. The other part towards the south had the petty shopkeepers. The vegetable market and hackney stand has given way to a new shopping complex. This is immediately behind the Clock Tower. The petitioners occupy the roadside on the west of the municipal market. The record of the proceedings of the Estate Officer or the reply of the respondents describes them on Bajaja Patri Road. Between the row of shops on the two sides of the road the petitioners are on the sidewalk. This is immediately behind the Clock Tower. The petitioners occupy the roadside on the west of the municipal market. The record of the proceedings of the Estate Officer or the reply of the respondents describes them on Bajaja Patri Road. Between the row of shops on the two sides of the road the petitioners are on the sidewalk. They accept that they are on the roadside, that is, the Patri. The order of the Estate Officer and the reply of the petitioners before him accepts this position and on this aspect there is no issue. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended, firstly, that they had not received the notice. Secondly the notice as bad as the municipal shopping complex is now complete and the purpose is over and, thus, their eviction cannot be continued as a consequence of the notice. Thirdly, they have a longstanding lease given to them by the then Municipal Board. Fourthly, the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, is at best only the manager of nazul lands and not the owners of it and they have no authority to evict the petitioners and the proceedings against them are bad. Lastly, it was submitted on their behalf that the petitioners have been on the Bajaja Patri Road and the tract of land which they occupy (Bajaja Patri) they pay Nazrana into the credit of the nazul department, consequently as managers of the nazul estate, the Nagar Mahapalika, must find for the man alternate accommodation. The last submission was withdrawn as easily as it was made as the Court will subsequently reflect on this. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the local administration, the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, it was submitted that one of the petitioners Smt. Khairun Nisha, who has filed Writ Petition No. 5945 of 1978, is not even entitled to file the present writ petition as she has been provided an alternate site at the New Subji Mandi, West Allahabad which she has accepted and, thus, no cause survives to her. In so far as the rest of the petitioners are concerned, the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, was prepared to consider alternate accommodation, but this submission was withdrawn. In so far as the rest of the petitioners are concerned, the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, was prepared to consider alternate accommodation, but this submission was withdrawn. The Nagar Mahapalika and previously its predecessor-in-law, the Municipal Board, have always managed nazul lands as part of a policy of the government which, apparently, is clear from the nazul manual itself that all over Uttar Pradesh the local administration manages the nazul estate in their respective jurisdictions, notwithstanding the fact that a change in managing nazul lands is being contemplated, but this will not affect any aspect of the case. ( 6 ) EACH of the petitioners received a notice from the Nagar Mahapalika, declaring to them that the site which they occupy is required for completing the multi-storeyed shop-cum-office complex under construction and the tenancy is terminated with effect from the date next to the expiry of thirty days commencing from the receipt of notice. The petitioners replied to the notice. They submitted that their lease was of a permanent nature and as they had made an investment by constructing their shops they were not liable to ejectment. They challenged the notice without permission of the District Magistrate, instead of acknowledging the status of their occupation. The petitioners told the Nagar Mahapalika that they have "right over the said road. They refuted the notice. ( 7 ) THUS, the Nagar Mahapalika filed cases before the Prescribed Authority (the City Magistrate, Allahabad) under the Act. Each case was registered separately. The plaint or the application before the Prescribed Authority is appended as Annexure 1 to each writ petition. The Nagar Mahapalika stated in its application that the site was, in effect, required for a public purpose; upon a notice served the site occupied has not been vacated and the period of notice has expired. The occupier of the site was, thus, being treated as an unauthorised occupant hence the case. An order for eviction was sought with consequential arrears of rent and damages as detailed. The application was verified by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. ( 8 ) THE petitioners, each one of them, filed a written statement to each case; appended to each writ petition. The petitioners challenged the title of Nagar Mahapalika as neither landlord nor owner, but accepted that the Nagar Mahapalika "is a mere Manager". The application was verified by the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. ( 8 ) THE petitioners, each one of them, filed a written statement to each case; appended to each writ petition. The petitioners challenged the title of Nagar Mahapalika as neither landlord nor owner, but accepted that the Nagar Mahapalika "is a mere Manager". They reiterated that the site they occupied is not by a tenancy but a lease and that also a permanent one. They also contended that the proceedings, are had as the matter was one of a dispute between a landlord and a tenant and the Act under which action was being taken against them as an unauthorised occupant was not applicable. ( 9 ) THE only other record of consequence, upon which pleadings were exchanged, the petitioner appended the order by the Prescribed Authority by which the eviction of the petitioners was ordered under the Act. Then there is the judgment in appeal under S. 9 of the Act, before the District Judge, in the present case before an Additional District Judge, Allahabad. ( 10 ) NOT filed earlier with either of the pleadings, whether the petition or the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners attempted to file further records 18 years after the writ petition was filed. Some records are not part of the proceedings of the courts below. The other records are, an application on their behalf seeking production of certain documents when the matter was before the Prescribed Authority; an affidavit of an official one Kripa Shankar, Assistant Nazul Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad; interrogatories delivered on the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, and the reply to the interrogatories answered by the Nagar Mahapalika. Though, the Nagar Mahapalika in its counter affidavit states that the petitioners did not file any documentary evidence in support of their contention. ( 11 ) THE petitioners should have appended these records when they filed their writ petition 18 years ago. Filing these papers by a supplementary affidavit to be placed before the Court on the day of hearing is not fair. However, the Court has taken the papers into account in as much they formed part of the record before the courts below. No argument was addressed on the freshly filed papers. Even the arguments on the petitions were confined by counsel, Mr. Rameshwar Nath, Advocate, to the record. However, the Court has taken the papers into account in as much they formed part of the record before the courts below. No argument was addressed on the freshly filed papers. Even the arguments on the petitions were confined by counsel, Mr. Rameshwar Nath, Advocate, to the record. Likewise, the arguments on behalf of the contesting respondents, the Nagar Mahaplika, by Mr. Ashok Mohiley, Advocate. ( 12 ) THE Court has perused the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 1/11/1976 in one Writ Petition No. 5945 of 1978 and dated 23/03/1978 Writ Petitions Nos. 9541, 9542, 10201, 10204,10205, 10227 and 10422 of 1978, in the other writ petitions. The Court has also read the corresponding judgments in appeals decided by Second Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dated 24/01/1978, in Civil Appeal No, 1255 of 1978 : Gulam Mustafa v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, in the context of Writ Petition No. 5945 of 1978, and the other judgments by the Ist Additional District Judge, Allahabad, delivered separately on 2/07/1978, in Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1978 : Mohammad Haneef v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad; Civil Appeal No. 199 of 1978 : Abdul Khalique v. Nagar Mahaplika, Allahabad; Civil Appeal No. 202 of 1978 : Syed Azhar Hassan v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad; Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1978 : Abdul Rab v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahahad; Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1976 : Riaz Ahmad v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad; Civil Appeal No. 201 of 1978 : Zulkadar Bahadur v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1978 : Mst. Rajibbun Nisa v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. ( 13 ) THE Prescribed Authority issued notice under S. 4 of the Act to each of petitioners to show cause why an order of eviction be not made against them. Each of the petitioners filed their reply by showing cause. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not in dispute. The right of Nagar Mahapalika to evict was challenged on the ground that it did not have any independent right to the property but merely that of a manager of nazul land. The Prescribed Authority held that the Nagar Mahapalika has a right to evict persons like the petitioners and that the site is required by the Nagar Mahapalika for the purpose, indicated. Eviction was ordered by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority held that the Nagar Mahapalika has a right to evict persons like the petitioners and that the site is required by the Nagar Mahapalika for the purpose, indicated. Eviction was ordered by the Prescribed Authority. ( 14 ) IN appeal, the learned First and Second Additional District Judge, Allahabad, referred hereinafter as the Additional District Judge, held : The relationship of landlord and tenant as an admitted fact. The tenancy of the petitioners was determined as provided under law. The notices under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act, were accepted by the appellants. The site being a nazul property was accepted. The Additional District Judge held that under law, by virtue of S. 125 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, the Nagar Mahapalika has been entrusted the management of nazul property and that under S. 2 (e) and ( g) of the Act (U. P. Public Premises Eviction of (Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972), public premises includes nazul land or any premises entrusted to the management of a local authority, and that the Nagar Mahapalika is a local authority. Thus, the Appellate Court held that the proceedings to evict the appellants under the Act were rightly maintained. The learned Additional District Judge sustained the decision of the Prescribed Authority that the appellants were unauthorised occupants when they continued to occupy public lands despite notice to quit. On the contention that the purpose for which the Nagar Mahapalika required the site had not been indicated in the notice, the Appellate Court held that this was sufficiently provided for in the notice that the site is required by the Nagar Mahapalika. The application filed before the Prescribed Authority stated that the applicant (Nagar Mahapalika) required the site for construction of multi-storeyed commercial project. The Additional District Judge also held that the site in issue lies between the public road and the proposed multi-storeyed commercial project and would be the passage as an access to this proposed building. The eviction was affirmed. ( 15 ) THERE are concurrent orders and judgments of two courts below. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in law apparent on the face of the record to occasion interference by a writ of certiorari. The eviction was affirmed. ( 15 ) THERE are concurrent orders and judgments of two courts below. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in law apparent on the face of the record to occasion interference by a writ of certiorari. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioners and the entire record, the two basic objections of the petitioners were that the Nagar Mahapalika as manager of nazul land had no authority to take action against their eviction. Secondly, the petitioners had, according to them a permanent lease. ( 16 ) THE authority of the Nagar Mahapalika, as a local body to manage nazul land and provided by law under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, has been rightly noticed by the Appellate Court. The submission of the petitioners that they have a permanent lease to occupy a patri or a roadside is misconceived. No one can own a road or a roadside by lease, permanent lease or otherwise. Roads and drains are maintained by the municipality. Public pathways, roadside and pattris inclusive, vest in the municipality, AIR 1965 SC 1147 : Municipal Board, Mangalore v. Mahdeoji and AIR 1954 SC 728 : Saghir Ahmad v. State of U. P. Thus, looked at anyway, with an accepted position that the petitioners occupy the Bajaja Road Patri, which in itself shows that the occupation is on a roadside, this land is public land. The Nagar Mahapalika has rightly proceeded against the petitioners under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. ( 17 ) THE petitioners suppressed a fact from the High Court that they had filed a review application before the District Judge and these applications were dismissed on 13-1-1979 while the writ petitions were pending. This fact is mentioned in the counter affidavit and not denied in the rejoinder affidavit. ( 18 ) THE last submission on behalf of the petitioners was made and withdrawn. It was made in the circumstances that counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika, Mr. Ashok Mohiley, pointed to the record of Writ Petition No. 5945 of 1978 : Smt. Khairun Nisa v. IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad. He stated that this petitioner had, in fact, vacated the site and had been provided an alternate site, and that the cause does not survive for the petitioners in this writ petition. Ashok Mohiley, pointed to the record of Writ Petition No. 5945 of 1978 : Smt. Khairun Nisa v. IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad. He stated that this petitioner had, in fact, vacated the site and had been provided an alternate site, and that the cause does not survive for the petitioners in this writ petition. On this learned counsel for the petitioners in all the other writ petitions submitted that alternate shops maybe allotted or provided to the other petitioners. He took instructions from his clients but later withdrew this submission. ( 19 ) IN the net result, on merits the Court does not find any error or illegality in the orders of the Prescribed Authority nor the judgment of the Appellate Court. The writ petitions are without merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. As the petitioners appear to be petty shop-keepers there will he no order on costs. ( 20 ) DISMISSED. No order on costs. Petitions dismissed.