JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 18-7-1995, passed by Prescribed Authority Chamoli in Case No. 13 of 1994 State vs. Gabbar Singh and the order dated 22-11-1996 passed by District Judge Chamoli in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 18/1995 Gabbar Singh Vs. State Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that on the basis of report submitted by Patwari Chamoli proceedings under Section 4/5 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 were initiated against the petitioner before Prescribed Authority Chamoli. Notice U/S 4 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. In reply the petitioner has alleged that the land in question was given to him on lease by the State and he has raised construction over the said land. The parties also adduced evidence before the Prescribed Authority. The learned Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 18-7-1995 passed eviction order against the petitioner from three Muthis land of Khasra No.2 of Village Bhu-talla, Tehsil and District Chamoli. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge vide order dated 22-11-1996. Aggrieved by the impugned orders the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and has alleged that the Deputy Commissioner Chamoli has granted the lease of four Muthis to the petitioner in Khasra No.2 of the aforesaid village vide order No. 301/80-81 in the year 1981 and the petitioner has constructed two houses over the said leased land. It is further pleaded that the Patwari has submitted wrong map and the challani report has been submitted in respect of the same land of which the petitioner has been granted lease. It is further alleged that the Patwari with the collision of Mansa Ram and Badri Prasad submitted the challani report of the same land which was granted to him. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In the counter affidavit it has been pleaded that the petitioner has not constructed the house on the land sanctioned to him on lease but he has constructed the house on three Muthis excess land of the State and the eviction order has rightly been passed against him. 4. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In the counter affidavit it has been pleaded that the petitioner has not constructed the house on the land sanctioned to him on lease but he has constructed the house on three Muthis excess land of the State and the eviction order has rightly been passed against him. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner and alleged that the construction has been made by the petitioner on the leased land and no encroachment has been made on the some other Government land. It is further alleged that the Patwari has submitted wrong challani report with collusion of some village people and the learned Prescribed Authority without verifying the true record has simply relied on the challani report and on the basis of wrong report and map the petitioner cannot be evicted from the house raised by him on the land granted to him on lease. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. By a perusal of judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority it reveals that the challani report was submitted by the Patwari relating to unauthorized construction over three Muthis land whereas in the same Khasra four Muthis land was sanctioned to petitioner on lease. The Patwari has noted in the challani report that the unauthorized construction has been raised on foot path of Chhinka situated below the road of P.W.D. whereas the case of the petitioner is that lease was sanctioned to him in 1981 and in the year 1982 he had constructed two houses on the leased land and the Rasta was not in existence at that time whereas according to the Patwari the Rasta was constructed in the year 1972-73. The learned Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding that the lease land of the petitioner is situated below the Rasta whereas the land over which the petitioner has raised unauthorized construction is situated above the said Rasta. No finding has been recorded by the Prescribed Authority whether the Rasta was in existence when the petitioner has raised construction over the land or it was constructed lateron. Undisputedly the land given on lease to the petitioner is of same Khasra No. 2 and challani report has also been submitted regarding the land of same Khasra. No finding has been recorded by the Prescribed Authority whether the Rasta was in existence when the petitioner has raised construction over the land or it was constructed lateron. Undisputedly the land given on lease to the petitioner is of same Khasra No. 2 and challani report has also been submitted regarding the land of same Khasra. The learned Prescribed Authority has not given a categorical finding whether at the time when the petitioner has raised construction Rasta was in existence or it was constructed lateron. Therefore it is a fit case for remand. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate court are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to decide the same afresh after taking the evidence of the parties on the point whether at the time of granting lease the ‘Rasta’ was in existence at the spot or it came into existence lateron and the houses constructed by the petitioner have been constructed on the leased land or he has encroached upon some other land belonging to State.