Judgment : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. The petitioner before this Court is State of Rajasthan, who has filed this writ petition through Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Vrindavan. The short question before this Court is as to whether a property belonging to the State of Rajasthan though situated in the territory of the State of Uttarakhand gives right to the State of Rajasthan to initiate a proceeding against a person regarding the said property under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act). There is a property situated in Haridwar, which is a Mandir known as “Ganga Mandir, Bikaner, Shrawan Nath Ghat”, which belongs to the State of Rajasthan. There are certain persons in occupation of the said property, inter alia, being present respondent nos. 2 to 4 who are being represented by Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate before this Court. Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4 has stated that the matter involves on legal submissions as the factual aspects are more or less admitted between the parties. He further submits that since only a question of law is involved he would not be filing a counter affidavit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on a application (which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition) moved by the State of Rajasthan notices were issued to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 under the Act in which respondents filed reply on 19.5.1986 stating that they are in occupation of the said property and the said property is not a “public premises” as defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act, and therefore, notices issued to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 are without jurisdiction. The respondents in their reply also stated that they are the legal tenants of the said property and have been depositing the rent in the court etc. Subsequently, the said application was registered as case no. 59 of 1987 by the prescribed authority stating that the property in question is a public premises and the present respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the unauthorized occupants. Consequently, eviction orders were passed on 27.7.1994 by the prescribed authority against respondent nos. 2 to 4. Subsequently, the said application was registered as case no. 59 of 1987 by the prescribed authority stating that the property in question is a public premises and the present respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the unauthorized occupants. Consequently, eviction orders were passed on 27.7.1994 by the prescribed authority against respondent nos. 2 to 4. Consequently, respondent nos. 2 to 4 has been evicted from the premises by invoking power of the Act. Moreover, the property in question in any case is not public premises because public premises would mean the property belong to the State Government which would be State of Uttarakhand or State of Uttar Pradesh (as it was at the relevant time). The property belongs to the State of Rajasthan does not come under the definition of public premises and therefore, notices issued to respondent nos. 2 to 4 is without jurisdiction. The prescribed authority though took the view that Section 2 (b) of the Act defines public premises to be a “premises” which means any land including any forest land or trees standing thereon, or covered by water, or a road maintained by the State Government. Consequently, eviction order was passed against respondent nos. 2 to 4 on 27.7.1994. Aggrieved, the respondents moved a civil appeal no. 35 of 1994 before the Ist Additional District Judge, Haridwar under Section 4 and 5 of the Act. In appeal, the District Judge came to the conclusion that on a property owned and maintained by the State of Rajasthan, provision of the Public Premises Act are not applicable, as it would be only applicable if the property belong to the State Government i.e. State of U.P. (as it was at the relevant time). Consequently, the appeal was allowed on 28.11.1997 and the order of the prescribed authority was set aside. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.1997, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 4. The sole question for consideration before this Court is the provision of the Act is applicable in the present matter or not. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on 28.11.1997 and the order of the prescribed authority was set aside. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.1997, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 4. The sole question for consideration before this Court is the provision of the Act is applicable in the present matter or not. This Court is of the considered view that only property belongs to the State Government which is of Uttarakhand or the State of Uttar Pradesh (as it was at the relevant time) are covered under the said Act, and if the property belongs to any other Government though situated in the territory of Uttarakhand, such a property would not be covered under the definition of “public premises” under the Act. The reasons are as under: Section 2(b) of the Act defines premises as under: “2. Definitions.- In this Act unless the context otherwise requires- (a) … (aa) … (b) “premises” means any land (including any forest land or trees standing thereon, or covered by water, or a road maintained by the State Government or land appurtenant to such road) or any building or part of a building and includes- (i) the garden, grounds and out houses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of a buildings, and (ii) any fittings or fixtures offixed to or any furniture supplied with such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof, but does not include land which for the time being is held by a tenure-holder under any relating to land tenure.” 4. Public premises as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act is as under: “2. Public premises as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act is as under: “2. Definitions.- In this Act unless the context otherwise requires- (a) … (aa) … (b) … (c) … (d) (e) “public premises” means by premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government, and includes any premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of- (i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; or (ii) any local authority; or (iii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local authority) owned or controlled by State Government; or (iv) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the governing body whereof consists, under the rules or regulations of the society, wholly of public officers, or nominees of the State Government, or both; and also includes- (i) Nazul land or any other premises entrusted to the management of a local authority (including any building built with Government funds on land belonging to the State Government after the entrustment of the land to the local authority, not being land vested in or entrusted to the management of a Gaon Sabha or any other local authority under any law relating to land tenures); (ii) any premises acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the consent of the State Government for a company (as defined in that Act) and held by that company under an agreement executed under Section 41 of that Act providing for re-entry by the State Government in certain conditions;]” 5. From the above two definitions, it is very clear that the “premises” or “public premises” which are the land which belong to the State Government. From the scheme of the Act, it is very clear that the State Government here means Government of Uttarakhand. Under the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 in the definition clause, the State Government has been defined under Section 4 (42-C) as follows: “4. From the scheme of the Act, it is very clear that the State Government here means Government of Uttarakhand. Under the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 in the definition clause, the State Government has been defined under Section 4 (42-C) as follows: “4. Definitions.- In all [Uttar Pradesh] Acts, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (1)… (2)… (3)… (42)… (42-C) “the State Government” shall mean the Government of Uttar Pradesh, and as respects functions entrusted under Article 258-A of the Constitution to the Central Government shall include the Central Government acting within the scope of the authority given to it under that article;]” 6. In the present context, since the Act though enacted in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh has been adopted in the new State of Uttarakhand, the State Government would mean Government of Uttarakhand. 7. In view of the above, the property belonging to any other State except the State of Uttarakhand would not constitute a “public premises” under the Act, and consequently the provisions of the Act will not be attracted in the present case. 8. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate order is an ex parte order whereas the order of appellate court itself shows that repeated notices were issued to the State of Rajasthan but they failed to file their response. Hence, there is no anomaly in the present matter. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to costs.