Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 8-5-92 passed by the respondent No. 5, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla in Eviction Suit No. 1/92 whereby an order of eviction has been passed under the provisions of Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 and also the order dated 17-8-92 passed by respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla confirming the order of respondent No. 5 and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioners case is that the land appertaining to khata No. 867, plot No. 7906 measuring an area of 22 decimals belonged to one Mahangu Oraon, grand father of petitioner No. 2 who was recorded tenant in respect of the aforesaid land. It is stated that a house was constructed by Mahangu Oraon and after his death, the land and the house was inherited by petitioner No. 2. Petitioners further case is that petitioner No. 1 was inducted as a tenant by petitioner No. 2 in the said premises and the petitioner No. 1 has been staying their along with his family members. It is contended that the petitioner No. 2 filed a case for restoration under the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (shortly CNT Act) being S.A.R. Case No. 1/91 and by an order dated 28-3-91 the land has been directed to be restored in favour of petitioner No, 2. The petitioners state that they were shocked and surprised to receive a notice whereby it was intimated that the petitioner No. 1 is in unauthorised occupation, of the premises in question which is the Government land and they should file show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be passed against them. A proceeding was initiated as Eviction case No. 1/92. Petitioners said to have appeared and filed show cause stating, inter alia, that it is riot a Government premises and, as such, the proceeding is not maintainable. In support of their stand, the petitioners filed all relevant documents including the khatiyan to show that the premises belonged to petitioner No, 2 but in spite of the aforesaid fact respondent No, 5 passed the impugned order for eviction of petitioner No. 1 from the premises. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 13/92 but the same was dismissed. 3. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 13/92 but the same was dismissed. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 stating, inter alia, that the recorded tenant of the land in question were the ancestors of petitioner No. 2, Bhadu Oraon and petitioner No. 1 was never inducted in the house, rather, he is in unauthorised obssession. The respondents denied and disputed the title of the petitioners over the land in question. It is stated that the land in question was acquired by the Government in 1940 at the expenses of Ranchi District Board for public purposes and for the purpose of construction of subordinate quarters. The Ranchi District Board constructed a Dak Bunglow at the recommendation of the Sectional Officer of the Ranchi District Board. Subsequently, the properly was transferred to the District Development Com-missioner-cum-Secretary of the Zila Parishad, Gumla. Lastly, it is stated that neither the Zila Parishad nor the State of Bihar was made a party in the restoration proceeding which was a collusive proceeding in order to create evidence. 4. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the impugned orders passed by the respondents-authorities as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the disputed question of title cannot be decided in a summary proceeding under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Learned Counsel submitted that even assuming that the land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it cannot become a Public premises unless and until the possession of the land is taken under Sec. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is contended that the respondents have not filed a single chit of paper to show that it is a Government premises and the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the land and the house. 5. I have gone through the entire facts of the case and the impugned orders passed by the respondents-authorities. From perusal of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, it appears that the land in question was acquired in the year 1940 for the purposes of construction of quarter for the officers. It further appears that petitioner No. 1. Dr. Irkush Toppo came in the Block in 1971 as Medical Officer in Bhurno Health Centre and he occupied the quarter. It further appears that petitioner No. 1. Dr. Irkush Toppo came in the Block in 1971 as Medical Officer in Bhurno Health Centre and he occupied the quarter. The case of the respondents is that although petitioner No. 1 was transferred to different place from Bhurno but he did not vacate the quarter rather kept his family members. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 claimed to be in possession of the quarter as a tenant under petitioner No. 2 who is said to be the heir of the recorded tenant. It further transpires from the copy of the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner (Annexure-5) that the eviction proceeding was originally initiated against petitioner No, 1 but petitioner No. 2 subsequently intervened in the said proceeding and filed an application for impleading him as a party. The Sub-Divisional Officer ultimately came to the conclusion that the premises in question is a Government premises and petitioner No. 1 has been in unauthorised occupation of the same. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed. 6. The Deputy Commissioner who has disposed of the appeal has considered the evidences in detail and found that 0.34 acres of land of plot No. 7906 of Bhurno was acquired by the Government and it came in possession of the Zila Parishad. The acquisition was made in the year 1940 by virtue of a notification published in Bihar Gazette No. 10 dated 6-3-94. Before that a notification dated 29-2-1940 was issued notifying that the plot in question is required for public purposes. The appellate authority further took notice of the copy of the notification file by the respondents issued under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and also the copy of the list of buildings/propertie, owned by Zila Parishad. On the basis of all the documentary evidence the appellate authority also came to a finding that the land and the house belongs to the Government. 7. On the contrary, save and except a bunda purcha and a draft record of rights no other document were produced by the petitioners to show that petitioner No. 1 has been in authorised possession of the quarter. 7. On the contrary, save and except a bunda purcha and a draft record of rights no other document were produced by the petitioners to show that petitioner No. 1 has been in authorised possession of the quarter. It has not been disputed by petitioner No. 1 that in 1971 he came as a Medical Officer in Bharno Block and occupied the quarter in question and since then he has been in occupation of the quarter although he had been transferred to different places. In my opinion, therefore, the appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondents that the land and the house belongs to the Government and it is a Government premises. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 8. In the result, there is no merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed.