JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—At the time of arguments no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents in these writ petitions hence only arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners were heard. 2. Substitution application to bring on record legal representatives of respondent No. 2 in writ petition No. 7528 of 1978 is allowed. 3. According to the petitioners land admeasuring 1.6 acres comprised in several plots including old plot Nos. 552 to 555 was acquired under Land Acquisition Act through notification under Section-6 of the Act published in the Gazette dated 15.5.1914 for erstwhile B.N.W. Railways. It has further been stated that immediately after the acquisition the plot numbers of the acquired land were changed in the agricultural year starting from 1.7.1914. According to the further case of the petitioners one Bechai Dubey took wrongful possession over the acquired land comprised in the aforesaid plots in 1942-43 hence railway administration filed O.S. No. 531 of 1943, Governor General-in-Council v. Bechai Dubey and others, for removal of constructions as Sri Dubey had also raised constructions over the said plots. Suit was decreed by Additional Civil Judge/J.S.C.C., Gorakhpur on 31.7.1948. Suit for possession by removal of defendants’ construction was decreed and defendants were further restrained from interfering in plaintiffs’ possession in future. Thereafter in the year 1952 execution application for execution of the decree dated 31.7.1948 was filed. According to the petitioners, contesting respondents in these writ petitions resisted the delivery of possession hence petitioners filed application under Order XXI Rule 97, C.P.C. against the contesting respondents in these writ petitions. The application was dismissed on the ground that the opposite parties of the said application i.e. contesting respondents in these writ petitions were not found to be resisting or obstructing delivery of possession. Against the said order petitioners filed revision in this Court being Civil Revision No. Nil of 1952 which was dismissed on 18th (or 28th) August, 1952. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit which does not contain the number of the revision. (However, it is stated therein that the said revision was directed against decision of Additional Civil Judge dated 23.4.1952). Copy of the said judgment is Annexure C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit which does not contain the number of the revision. (However, it is stated therein that the said revision was directed against decision of Additional Civil Judge dated 23.4.1952). In the said judgment it was held that : “There was nothing to suggest any connection between the O.P. and J.D. and even if the constructions have been made during the pendency of the suit it cannot be said that they were made at the instigation of the J.D.s”. It was further held as follows : “When the applicant itself failed to prove that it was the J.D.s who were resisting delivery of possession the O.P. was not required to prove that it claimed in good faith to be in possession of the property on its own count.” 4. Thereafter petitioners filed suit in the year 1953 (O.S. No. 442 of 1953) against the contesting respondents. In the suit application was filed for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh suit. The said application was allowed by the Civil Judge on 29.9.1956 allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action provided that, the plaintiff deposited before the institution of the subsequent suit but in no case later than six months from the said date, the cost of the defendants incurred till then. 5. Instead of instituting fresh suit petitioners opted to file application for eviction of the contesting respondents under Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1958 in the year 1964 giving rise to the instant writ petitions. The application was allowed by Estate Officer in the year 1968 however, on appeal the order was reversed and matter was remanded. After remand the application was again allowed on 20.11.1975. Against the said orders appeals were preferred which were allowed on 1.5.1978 and orders passed by Estate Officer were set aside. Decision of the appellate Court dated 1.5.1978 is under challenge in these writ petitions. 6. Before Estate Officer thirteen cases were filed being case Nos. 95 of 1964 against Ram Nain, 100 of 1964 against Ram Dulare, 101 of 1964 against Ram Das and case No. 111 to 120 of 1964 against Bhottoo, Ram Awtar, Ram Chandra and others, Babu Lal, Nuneshwar Prasad, Munni Lal, Jag Das, Baij Nath, Sher Singh, Jagat Narain Gupta. 6. Before Estate Officer thirteen cases were filed being case Nos. 95 of 1964 against Ram Nain, 100 of 1964 against Ram Dulare, 101 of 1964 against Ram Das and case No. 111 to 120 of 1964 against Bhottoo, Ram Awtar, Ram Chandra and others, Babu Lal, Nuneshwar Prasad, Munni Lal, Jag Das, Baij Nath, Sher Singh, Jagat Narain Gupta. The area of the alleged encroachment by the opposite parties in the said case varied from 87 Sq. yards to 1015 Sq. yards. 7. The appeals which were decided by the impugned judgment dated 1.5.1978 passed by Vth A.D.J., Gorakhpur were numbered as Misc. Appeal Nos. 791 to 794 of 1975, 808, 818, 819, 803, 804, 809, 812, 811, 790, 789, 796, 795, 806, 804, 800, 799, 801, 802 all of 1975 (total 28 appeals) Misc. Appeal No. 793 of 1975 was treated to be leading case. 8. One of the arguments raised by the occupants was that the costs were not paid within the time fixed by the order dated 29.9.1956 through which suit of 1953 was permitted to be withdrawn hence subsequent proceedings were not maintainable. The appellate Court held that due to non-payment of cost plaintiffs of the said suit were precluded from instituting fresh suit but proceedings under Public Premises Act were not barred. 9. However, it appears that the amount of cost was deposited but late. The amount was deposited after getting the tender passed by the Court. Appellate Court held that mere passing of the tender did not amount to extending the time to pay the cost and in any case time could not be extended. I do not agree with this reasoning of the appellate Court. Firstly passing of the tender may very well amount to extension of time and secondly in such matters time can always be extended by virtue of Section-148, C.P.C. Moreover in the order dated 29.9.1956 the consequence of non deposit within the time was not provided hence it cannot be said that merely because the costs were not deposited within time, the liberty granted by the said order stood withdrawn. The defendants of the said suit could initiate proceedings for recovery of the costs. 10. The appellate Court further held that it was not proved that property in dispute was public property belonging to the railways. 11. The defendants of the said suit could initiate proceedings for recovery of the costs. 10. The appellate Court further held that it was not proved that property in dispute was public property belonging to the railways. 11. In Madan Mohan Sharma and others v. A.D.J., Meerut, 2006 (8) ADJ 615 . I have held that disputed/complicated question of tile cannot be resolved in proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and even if decision has been given in respect of title either way in such proceedings still it is subject to the result of the regular suit. 12. Similar view has been taken by Hon. Devi Prasad Singh, J. in the judgment of State of U.P. v. A.D.J., Lucknow, 2006 (24) L.C.D. 733. Honble Judge has placed reliance upon several authorities including the authority of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081 . In the said authority the Supreme Court was dealing with Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act (3 of 1905) provisions of which are similar to the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Incidentally in the said case also dispute in between the Government and occupants was going back from 1942 (in the instant case also first suit was filed by the petitioners in 1943). The Supreme Court held that : “Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary Courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision.” (Para-8) 13. In the said case also the Government was claiming on the basis of acquisition and occupants were asserting that the land in dispute was not included in the acquisition notification. Some land was acquired for Osmania University which filed suit for possession in or about 1942. The occupants pleaded that firstly property in dispute was not included in the acquired property and in the alternative they were in adverse possession since immediately after acquisition and had matured their title thereby. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter Government started summary proceedings for eviction under the Act of 1905. The Supreme Court held that bona fide dispute of title was involved hence summary proceedings were not maintainable. 14. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter Government started summary proceedings for eviction under the Act of 1905. The Supreme Court held that bona fide dispute of title was involved hence summary proceedings were not maintainable. 14. It was also held in para-7 as follows : “If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title. In the instant case, there is unquestionably a genuine dispute between the State Government and the respondents as to whether the three plots of land were the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings taken by the then Government of Hyderabad and whether the Osmania University, for whose benefit the plots are alleged to have been acquired, had lost title to the property by operation of the law of limitation”. AND The respondents have a bona fide claim to litigate and they cannot be evicted save by the due process of law. The summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title. The procedure is, therefore, not the due process of law for evicting the respondents.” 15. In the instant case initially also against Sri Dubey and others, suit was filed by the petitioners, thereafter decree was put in execution and thereafter fresh suit was filed against contesting respondents in these writ petitions which was got withdrawn. 16. Accordingly, order of the appellate Court allowing the appeals are set aside. The order of eviction passed by Estate Officer is maintained but on different grounds. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file regular suit for possession and analogous reliefs against contesting respondents in these writ petitions before civil Court subject to law of limitation. 16. Accordingly, order of the appellate Court allowing the appeals are set aside. The order of eviction passed by Estate Officer is maintained but on different grounds. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file regular suit for possession and analogous reliefs against contesting respondents in these writ petitions before civil Court subject to law of limitation. If such suit is filed then apart from plea of bar of limitation, such other pleas will also be open to the contesting respondents in these writ petitions which may be available to them under Order 21, C.P.C. However, the question of bar of suit for non-payment of costs within six months from order dated 29.9.1956 shall not be permitted to be raised. The said question is finally decided in favour of petitioners through this judgment. 17. The finding of the appellate Court that due to non-filing/withdrawing the suit after decision of execution application dated 23.4.1952 by Additional Civil Judge as affirmed in revision by this Court on 18th/28th August, 1952 precluded the petitioners from asserting their right from the property in dispute is also set aside on the ground that as question of title was involved hence appellate Court should not have decided any other question. If any fresh suit is filed by the petitioners then the said question shall be decided afresh without taking into consideration the finding of the appellate Court in that regard or his order through which the said finding has been set aside. 18. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. ———