Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 29-4-1985 (Annexure-8) passed by the Estate Officer, while exercising powers under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter called as the Act) and District Judge (Annexure-9) passed in appeal against Annex-ure-8 respectively. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the premises where he was residing in Teela Basti near Sikar House outside Chandpole Gate, Jaipur City is in his possession for last more than 50 years. He had constructed his house at the place where it was sandy mounds initially but with hard labour he made pucca construction of the house many decades ago. It is the case of the petitioner that the Improvement Trust Jaipur claiming to be the owner of the property started realising rent from the father of the petitioner. One of the rent receipt issued by the UIT in the year 1969-70 is attached as Annexure- 1. It is stated that a survey was conducted by the department to regularise the Basti. He has got electric and water connection in the house which was constructed by him. Vide Annexure-6, the interference by the Municipal Committee was also opposed. It is stated that it was initially agricultural land as entered in the record, but application for conversion to residence was also under consideration as per Annexure-7. 3. Hereceived the order dated 29-4-1985 passed by the Estate Officer declaring him to be trespasser on the Wakf Properly and to pay the damages to the Wakf Board at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month for three years amounting to Rs. 3,600/-and further to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 100/-a month. It is stated that as soon as he got the knowledge of the order Annexure-8, he applied for the certified copy and filed an appeal in February, 1987. Appeal was dismissed on 17-2-1987 on the ground of limitation. It is slated that as soon as he got the knowledge of the ex parte order, he had applied for the copy of the order which had taken three days, and 21st July 1985 being Sunday, the appeal was filed within limitation. However, the District Judge dismissed the appeal as per the order Annexure-9 on the ground of limitation as well. 4. However, the District Judge dismissed the appeal as per the order Annexure-9 on the ground of limitation as well. 4. Challenge has been made to the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner was never declared a trespasser nor any notice was issued by the Wakf Board, nor property ever belonged to the Wakf Board. It is stated that the Estate Officer had not issued the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act to the petitioner. The certified copy of the notice has been placed as Annexure-10 by way of additional affidavit which clearly shows that he was never served with any notice. It is stated that the petitioner had never refused to accept the notice and some fabricated report has been made on the back of the notice to the effect that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice. According to the petitioner the notice itself is defective. It is further submitted that the District Judge has not applied its mind to the facts of the case properly and has illegally held that the appeal had been filed beyond limitation. 5. Reply has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that neither the UIT nor the JDA had any authority to deal with the property in question for the reason that the property belongs to the Wakf Board. It is stated that the petitioner had not appeared before the Estate Officer and, therefore, the ex parte order Annexure-8 was passed in accordance with law. 6. From the pleadings of the parties it emerges that the notice under Section 4 was required to be issued by the Estate Officer. Whether it was issued in accordance with the law and served, to prove this fact, the petitioner had placed the photostat copy of the said notice which does not bear any date of service by the process server. It is signed by two witnesses and interestingly neither of the witness either had put any date on the notice. It seems that on the undated report of refusal of service of the process server ex parte proceedings have been initiated an other notice seems to be dated 23-2-1985 for appearance on 20-2-1985 and has been issued under Section 17 (2) of the Act The report of Mohd. It seems that on the undated report of refusal of service of the process server ex parte proceedings have been initiated an other notice seems to be dated 23-2-1985 for appearance on 20-2-1985 and has been issued under Section 17 (2) of the Act The report of Mohd. Rafiq is without date and to the same effect as mentioned in the earlier report that the petitioner had refused and the notice has been pasted on the property of the petitioner. However, this notice under Section 7(2) is signed by the same witness on 27-1-1985. There does seen truth in the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact no notice under Section 4 or any other notice was ever issued or served on the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. It is also not known as to under whose order the process server had pasted the notice on the property of the petitioner and as to why the petitioner was not served through registered notice as well. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that a party is avoiding the service, there is a procedure for serving such a party by substitute service. But for that purpose the Court is to pass proper order. It is not the sweet will of the process server to effect the service on his own by pasting it on the wall. Such report made without permission or order of the Court is to be ignored and such pasting of notice on the property without orders of the Competent Court for effecting substitute service at the free will of process server cannot be termed as proper service. 8. Apart from above, it is admitted fact from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner was never issued a notice by the Wakf Board to the fact that the property ever belonged to the Wakf Board. Here is a case where the petitioner had constructed the house at the open place. This open place either belongs to the UIT or Municipal Committee or the Wakf Board. The petitioner was paying rent to the UIT. The Municipal Committee had tried to interfere in the possession by way of demolishing the property and the petitioner had taken up this matter with the authorities. This open place either belongs to the UIT or Municipal Committee or the Wakf Board. The petitioner was paying rent to the UIT. The Municipal Committee had tried to interfere in the possession by way of demolishing the property and the petitioner had taken up this matter with the authorities. If the Wakf Board is claiming the property, it was essential for the Wakf Board to have issued the notice to the petitioner for handing over the possession or to terminate his occupancy in accordance with law and to apprise the petitioner that he was in unauthorised possession of the property, only and only thereafter, after such notice having been issued and information sent to the petitioner by the Wakf Board, and if satisfactory reply had not received, the Wakf Board could have resorted to the provisions under the Act for eviction of the petitioner. No such action is forth-coming from the pleadings or from the record. Rather, it is not disputed by the Counsel for the respondent Wakf Board that the petitioner was ever apprise of the fact that the property belonged to the Wakf Board. Whether the property belonged to the Wakf Board or the UIT or the Municipal Committee is a question of fact which has to be established by way of leading evidence. Even otherwise, if the petitioner is in possession of the property for last more than 50 years as alleged, could his occupancy be terminated or can he claims any adverse possession. These were the matters to be determined and that only could be determined if some proceedings had been taken by the Wakf Board for eviction of the petitioner informing him of such position and if some notice had been issued to the petitioner by the Wakf Board itself stating the facts before resorting the provisions of the Act for eviction on the ground that the petitioner was a trespasser. 9. The petitioner has not been properly served by the Estate Officer as discussed above, but after going through the alleged notice under Section 4 (1) which is on the printed form, the Estate Officer had not mentioned the grounds of his satisfaction that the petitioner was a trespasser. 9. The petitioner has not been properly served by the Estate Officer as discussed above, but after going through the alleged notice under Section 4 (1) which is on the printed form, the Estate Officer had not mentioned the grounds of his satisfaction that the petitioner was a trespasser. It is essential for the Estate Officer while exercising powers under the Act to have mentioned on the notice itself about the grounds of his satisfaction to the fact that the petitioner was unauthorised occupant. No such material has been placed on record to show the basis for issuing such notice. This is admitted fact that the Estate Officer also belonged to the department of Wakf Board who had been empowered by the State of Rajasthan to act as Estate Officer under the Act. Under the circumstances, where the Estate Officer belongs to the department itself , it is more essential and important that it should not only see that the matter is proceeded with in accordance with law, but it is incumbent on such Estate Officer to give all the grounds which are basis for issuing of the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act so that the person to whom such a notice is issued is able to reply the notice for his defence. 10. Thepetitioner has placed on record the grounds of appeal taken before the District Judge wherein he has challenged the validity of the notice as well he had made the specific assertion that he had not been served with the notice at all before proceedings with the case by the Estate Officer. 11. I have gone through the order Annex-ure-9 passed by the District Judge. The District Judge had not discussed about the issuance or service of the notice under Section 4 of the Act. However, he has only discussed the order passed under Section 5(1) when the petitioner was ordered to be evicted and pay the damages and without giving any reasons or further discussion, the District Judge had held the appeal to be beyond limitation. The order of the District Judge is also not in accordance with law. It was the duty of the District Judge to have given a proper finding in regard to issuance of the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act which notice is precondition before starting the proceedings under the Act. The order of the District Judge is also not in accordance with law. It was the duty of the District Judge to have given a proper finding in regard to issuance of the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act which notice is precondition before starting the proceedings under the Act. No such discussion has been made by the District Judge. If the notice under Section 4 itself is not issued properly or not served in accordance with law. The ex parte proceedings taken by the Estate Officer itself fall along with all subsequent orders including the appellate order in this regard, 10.12. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the case Mohan Lal vs. State of Raj., 1997 (1) WLN 646 to the effect that it is mandatory for the Estate Officer first to form an opinion that the person against whom eviction proceedings are going to be initiated is an unauthorised occupant and the premises from where he is sought to be evicted is public premises and after forming such opinion a show cause notice is to be served. Any notice which only mentions the date of hearing is no notice in the eyes of law. The petitioner also relies on Raja Fateh Singh vs. State of Raj., 1986 RLR 966 to the effect that when the appellant prima facie shows the bona fide dispute of title, in that situation the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to proceed with and the matter can only be decided by the Civil Courts. 113. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned orders Annexures-8 and 9 are likely to be set aside and they are set aside. However in case the respondents decide to start the proceedings against the petitioner afresh, a proper notice shall be issued to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be at liberty to take all or any defences available to him including the disputed question of title before the Estate Officer which shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. The cost is assessed as Rs. 1000/-