ORDER 25.5.2010 — This writ application is directed against the orders passed by the Estate Officer, Rourkela and the appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The sole submission made before this Court challenging the orders is that the petitioner was not aware of any notice under Section 4 of the Act indicating the premises in respect of which the proceeding has been initiated by the Estate Officer and the grounds for eviction. As is evident from the order of the Estate Officer as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner had entered appearance before the Estate Officer and contested the proceeding and therefore now he cannot take a stand that he was not aware of the premises in respect of which the proceeding was initiated or the grounds on which the order of eviction was sought to be passed. The following decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of M/s. Wire-netting Stores and another v. The Delhi Development Authority and others reported in 1969(3) Supreme Court Cases 415, Sheik Khaliur Reheman v. Estate Officer, Bhubaneswar and others, AIR 1977 Orissa 201, Smt. Kamal Ray v. Bhagabat Singh, AIR 1977 Orissa 206, Dr. Yash Paul Gupta v. Dr. S.S. Anand and others, AIR 1980 Jammu and Kashmir 16, Hamsavalli and etc. v. Tahasildar, Vridha¬chalam South Arcot District, AIR 1990 Madras 350, Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao and others, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1405, M/s. Kylasa Sarabhaiah v. The Commissioner of Income tax, Hyderabad, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1411, Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 933, Laxmipat Choraria and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 938, Manmohan Das v. Madhunagar Powerloom Weavers’ Cooperative Society and others, Vol. 41(1975) CLT 697, Ramachandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. 41(1975) CLT 697, Ramachandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. v. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 S.C. 915 , Phiray Ram v. National Airport Author¬ity, Airport Ahmedabad and another, 1998 A I H C 329, K. Ibrahim Kutty v. K. Ramachandran and others, 1998 AIHC 332, Pamadhar Tea Company(P) Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, 2004 AIHC 3054, Amulya Chandra Sutradhar and another v. Estate Offi¬cer, AIR 1964 Tripura, Promode Ranjan Sen Gupta v. Swadesh Chan¬dra Deb, AIR 1964 Tripura 13, P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2979 and Brij Bhushan v. Kewal Kumar, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2983 have no application consider¬ing the fact involved in this case. The petitioner having partic¬ipated in the proceeding and being aware of the premises in re¬spect of which the proceeding had been initiated and the grounds therefore, we find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.