JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner no.1, Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5. 2. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 files supplementary affidavit in the Court. The same is taken on record. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 23.8.1985 passed by I Addl. District Judge, Nainital (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25.7.1985 has been set aside. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Prescribed Authority Haldwani, District Nainital issued a notice under Section 4 of Act No.22 of 1972 on 4.6.1981 to Sri Padma Datt, Kailash Chandra Upreti, Navin Chandra sons of Sri Raghubar Datt and Km. Shanti Devi daughter of Sri Raghubar Datt, on the grounds on which the order of eviction was proposed by the Prescribed Authority Haldwani in respect of property specified therein initially taken as plot nos.319 co-relating to plot nos.16, 17, 18, 22 and 39 located at Haldwani Khas Haldwani, District Nainital. Against the said notice, above four persons filed their objections. Learned Prescribed Authority, after considering the objections and hearing the parties, passed the judgment and order ordering eviction of the above persons as unauthorised occupants. During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 4/5 of Act No.22 of 1972, one of the party Km. Shanti Devi died on 21.11.1984 and allegedly she had executed a deed of will in favour of her elder sister one Smt. Chandra Kala Mishra who put appearance before the court of Prescribed Authority during these proceedings. She was also heard by the learned Prescribed Authority before passing of the judgment and order. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority, respondents Padma Datt filed appeal no.94 of 1985 and Kailash Chandra, Navin Chandra Upreti and Smt. Chandra Kala Misra filed appeal no.103 of 1985, which were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and order. 6. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority, respondents Padma Datt filed appeal no.94 of 1985 and Kailash Chandra, Navin Chandra Upreti and Smt. Chandra Kala Misra filed appeal no.103 of 1985, which were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and order. 6. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, learned District Judge, vide judgment and order dated 23.8.1985, allowed the appeal on the ground that no notice was given to the lessee for determination of their so-called constructive lease which stood renewed from year to year and so the present proceedings for eviction of the appellants on the ground of unauthorised occupation of public premises cannot be termed as legal and valid because the same appear and establish to commence without first giving notice under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, the Act) in determination of lease. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge dated 23.8.1985, State and Municipal Board Haldwani have filed the present writ petition before this Court. 8. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have contended that in view of Section 117 of the Act notice to determine the lease was not necessary to be given under Section 116 of the Act. 9. Section 117 of the Act would be relevant for this purpose, which is quoted hereunder:- “117. Exemption of leases for agricultural purposes.-None of the provisions of this Chapter apply to leases for agricultural purposes except in so far as the State Government may, by notification published in the official Gazette declare all or any of such provisions, to be so applicable [in the case of all or any of such leases], together with, or subject to, those of the local law, if any, for the time being in force. Such notification shall not take effect until expiry of six months from the date of its publication.” 10. It is next contended by the learned Addl. Advocate General that this fact is not disputed the land belongs to State Government being a ‘Nazul’ land and is being managed by Municipal Board Haldwani. It is also contended that the lease was given to Chandra Lal Sah on 10.4.1934 for a period of 30 years for agricultural purpose, which was not renewed thereafter. 11. Advocate General that this fact is not disputed the land belongs to State Government being a ‘Nazul’ land and is being managed by Municipal Board Haldwani. It is also contended that the lease was given to Chandra Lal Sah on 10.4.1934 for a period of 30 years for agricultural purpose, which was not renewed thereafter. 11. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that Chandra Lal Sah had also executed an instrument of transfer of lease rights in favour of Late Sri Raghubar Dutt in anticipation on 13.5.1933 and it was mentioned in the document that a resolution has been passed by the Municipal Board that lease has to be executed in his favour and after the lease got executed in his favour he will transfer lease rights to Late Sri Raghubar Dutt. This document has been filed by way of supplementary affidavit today wherein this clause has been mentioned in last paragraph of the document. 12. This fact is not disputed that lease was executed in favour of Chandra Lal Sah on 10.4.1934 after one year but Chandra Lal Sah had never executed any further document to transfer lease rights. Predecessor of respondents, Late Sri Raghubar Dutt Upreti, is claiming his rights on the basis of document dated 13.5.1933 which was executed by Chandra Lal Sah prior to execution of lease deed in his favour. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that lease was granted in favour of Sri Chandra Lal Sah w.e.f. 27.3.1933 for a period of 30 years. It is also contended that permission was also sought from Collector on 9.9.1934. As per clause of the agreement, the permission has to be obtained prior to transfer of lease rights. Since the lease deed was executed in favour of Chandra Lal Sah on 10.4.1934 therefore there was no occasion to give permission to Late Raghubar Dutt Upreti. Since the lease deed was executed by Chandra Lal Sah in favour of Raghubar Dutt on 13.5.1933 prior to execution of lease deed there was no question to obtain permission of the Collector and if any sub lease has been given by original lease holder without prior permission of the Collector and the persons are in possession of the premises they will be treated unauthorised occupant. Even otherwise, for the sake of arguments, if the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, in that event also, since the lease has been granted to Chandra Lal Sah w.e.f. 27.3.1933, the same has also come to an end after expiry of 30 years. 14. This fact is not disputed that lease was not renewed either in favour of Chandra Lal Sah or in favour of predecessor of the respondents. Therefore, after expiry of the lease deed the predecessor of respondents as well as the respondents would be treated as unauthorised occupants. 15. Along with the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 SA-5, 6, 7 and 8 have been annexed to show that some persons got free hold in their favour who are also in possession of the land. The finding of the appellate court that notice u/s 116 of T.P. Act was necessary to be given and liberty was given and to proceed in accordance with law is a perverse finding since the provisions of Section 116 of T.P. Act are not applicable on the State land in view of provisions of Section 117 of the Act mentioned above which was given by way of lease for agricultural purpose. In the case at hand, this fact is not disputed that lease was given to Chandra Lal Sah for agricultural purpose. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 23.8.1985 passed by I Additional District Judge, Nainital, is set aside. Judgment and order dated 25.7.1985 passed by Prescribed Authority is affirmed. However, it is provided that if the respondents move an application for free hold of the premises in question before the Collector, the same be considered by the Collector sympathetically, and decision be taken in accordance with law, expeditiously as far as possible.