JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. — In this writ application, the petition¬ers seek to quash the proceeding in OPP Case No.2 of 2007 (L) initiated under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unautho¬rised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short ‘the OPP Act’) of the Court of Estate Officer. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and petitioner No.2 is the Secretary of the society. The society is in occupation of government land measuring an area of 0.30 decimals, out of total area of 0.83 decimals under plot No.385 in khata No.348 of mouza BJB Nagar, Unit-29, Bhubaneswar. It is contended that the O.Ps., without initiating any proceeding for eviction under the Orissa Preven¬tion of Land Encroachment Act, 1973 which provides for settlement of land under Section 8-A, issued notice under Annexure-1 under the OPP Act directing the petitioners to show-cause as to why the petitioners shall not be evicted from the land occupied by them. In response to the said notice, Petitioner No.2 appeared before the learned Estate Officer and filed show-cause. Thereafter, the case record remained untraced. In the writ application as well as rejoinder-affidavit, it has been asserted by the petitioners that the land occupied by the petitioners is not ‘public premises’ within the meaning of OPP Act inasmuch as the land is situated within the area of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the O.Ps. it has been averred that in response to notice under Annexure-1 the petitioners entered appearance through Advocate and took time to file show-cause. Thereafter the petitioners remained absent as a result of which ex parte order of eviction was passed on 8.7.2007. Though OPP Act provides for filing of an appeal under Section 9 against the order of eviction, the petitioners have chosen to file the writ application. As the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of public premises in terms of provisions under the OPP Act, proceeding for eviction was rightly initiated under the OPP Act. The claim of the petitioners for regulariza¬tion of unauthorized occupation by referring to provision under Section 8-A of the Orissa Public Land Encroachment Act has no basis. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the peti¬tioners that admittedly “premises” in respect of which proceeding under the OPP Act was issued is situated within the jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the peti¬tioners that admittedly “premises” in respect of which proceeding under the OPP Act was issued is situated within the jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. “Public premises” as de¬fined under Section 2(f) of the OPP Act means “premises” situat¬ed, inter alia, within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or Notified Area Council or within an area specified to be an indus¬trial estate under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. Therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding under Section 4 of the OPP Act was incompetent. 5. In reply, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the State appearing for the opposite parties that prior to com¬mencement of Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 “premises” under unauthorised occupation of the petitioners was situated within the jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar Municipal Council and as such was “public premises”. In view of the saving provisions under Section 693 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003, the provisions under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 do not cease to apply in respect of any right, privilege, obligation or li¬ability accrued or incurred under the said Act. Therefore, pro¬ceeding under OPP Act was rightly initiated against the petition¬ers. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of relevant statutory provisions, we find substantial force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. Section 3(17-b) of the Orissa Municipal Act provides that “Municipality” means a Notified Area Council or a Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation. Section 4 of the said Act provides that State Government shall constitute (a) a Notified Area Council for every transitional area; (b) a Municipal Council for every smaller urban area; and (c) a Municipal Corpo¬ration for every larger urban area, in accordance with the provi¬sions under the Act. Also, in respect of any urban area or part thereof for which Municipal services are being provided or pro¬posed to be provided by an industrial establishment instead of constituting Council or Corporation and such area by notification may be specified to be an industrial township. Thus, Notified Area Council, Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation and indus¬trial township are distinct entities under the Orissa Municipal Act. Thus, Notified Area Council, Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation and indus¬trial township are distinct entities under the Orissa Municipal Act. Sub-section 2 (f) of Section 2 of OPP Act reads : “Public premises” means any premises situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or Notified Area Council or within an area declared by the State Government to be an indus¬trial estate and- (i) belong to or taken on lease by the State Government or the Board or by any Company, Corporation, Municipal Council, Notified Area Council, Improvement Trust, Special Planning Authority; or University; or (ii) requisitioned by the State Government.” Thus, “public premises” within the meaning of the OPP Act does not include any premises situated within a Municipal Corpo¬ration. Provisions under Section 693 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 does not come to the aid of the opposite parties inasmuch as the saving provisions contained therein is only in respect of right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act. 2003. Section 693 of the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 reads : “(1) On the commencement of this Act any smaller urban area declared or deemed to be larger urban area under Section 3 of this Act, the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (here¬inafter referred to as the said Act) shall cease to apply to such larger urban area. (2) Such cessation shall not affect, - (a) the previous operation of the said Action respect of the larger urban area referred to in Sub-section (1); or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the said Act; or (c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred, in respect of any offence committed under the said Act; or (d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfei¬ture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), all rules, bye-laws, notifications, orders, directions and powers, made, issued or conferred under the said Act and in force before the commencement of this Act shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue to be in force in the cities until they are replaced by the notifications, rules, bye-laws, order, directions and powers to be made or issued or conferred under this Act.” There is absolutely no scope to hold that liability for eviction of the petitioners has been incurred under the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003. Liability, if any, to be evicted and the right, if any, to initiate proceeding for eviction from a ‘public premises” have been incurred and accrued on the petition¬ers and opposite parties under the OPP Act only. So long as provisions under Section 2(f) of the OPP Act is not amended to include within it to mean premises situated within the jurisdic¬tion of a Municipal Corporation also, no proceeding can be initi¬ated under the OPP Act for eviction of persons from the “prem¬ises” situated within a Municipal Corporation. 7. In view of the above, proceeding in OPP Case No.2 of 2007 (L) initiated against the petitioners is misconceived and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceeding is quashed. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition allowed.