JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 10.6.2009 passed by District Judge, Tehri in Misc. Civil Appeal No.03 of 2009 Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. vs. State of Uttarakhand (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). 3. Brief facts of the case are that Collector Tehri filed a chalani report before the Prescribed Authority Tehri against the respondent company alleging therein that the respondent has made an illegal encroachment upon government land of village Khand and Bagi by constructing guest house, office, godown etc. and is earning profit @ Rs.1,61,67,600/- per annum and prayed for eviction and realization of mesne profit. Upon this, an eviction case no.21/2008 was registered under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (for short, the Act) and a notice u/s 4 was issued on 26.12.2008 fixing 20.1.2009 for filing objection. The case was contested by the respondent company by filing written statement/objection. After hearing both the parties, learned Prescribed Authority passed judgment dated 28.4.2009 ordering eviction of the respondent company. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent company filed an appeal before District Judge, Tehri Garhwal. By judgment and order dated 20.10.2009, learned District Judge, allowed the appeal of the respondent company. The learned appellate court, in page-5 of its judgment, observed as follows:- “From perusal of order-sheet of the Trial Court file, it is very much clear that till 22.4.2009, after filing written statement an application to implead THDC as necessary party was also moved and on that point the argument was heard by the Prescribed Authority and case was fixed for order on 28.4.2009 on the application, on which date the matter was finally decided by him. The record of trial court clearly shows that after filing chalani report and after receiving the written statement of OP, no opportunity to file evidence in support of their case was given to either side. The matter was decided by Prescribed Authority simply believing the chalani report submitted by the Collector, without ascertaining the fact whether the OP/appellant was in illegal occupation of any land or not. The matter was decided by Prescribed Authority simply believing the chalani report submitted by the Collector, without ascertaining the fact whether the OP/appellant was in illegal occupation of any land or not. He has not taken into consideration the defence raised by the OP.” 4. Feeling aggrieved, State has filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has contended that the learned appellate court has set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority on the ground that no evidence was led by either of the parties. Thus, it is clear that the order passed by the appellate court was not passed on merits. Learned counsel has contended that in these circumstances when the appellate court was of the view that evidence was not led by the parties, the appellate court ought to have remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority to give opportunity of hearing to the parties. 6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent/company has contended that so far as Village Khand is concerned, similar proceedings were initiated against the respondent company as Revenue Case No.56/2001 in respect of that village. That case was dismissed and ultimately notice was withdrawn by the State against the respondent company. 7. Learned senior counsel has further contended that so far as Village Bagi is concerned, the land/plot numbers which has been mentioned in the notice, has been submerged in water. Objections to this effect were also filed before the Prescribed Authority. 8. Learned senior counsel has further contended that even otherwise after completing the Project the land was handed over back to THDC as has been agreed in the contract agreement. It is the THDC with whom the respondent company executed a contract agreement to construct the dam and the same was returned to THDC after completion of the Project and the THDC has again handed over the land to Hindustan Construction Company. It is contended that respondent company is not in possession of the land as on today. 9. In reply thereto, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the illegal possession has to be seen on the date of notice. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that disputed question of facts are involved in the present writ petition which requires evidence. This Court, in writ jurisdiction, cannot decide the factual dispute. 11. 9. In reply thereto, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the illegal possession has to be seen on the date of notice. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that disputed question of facts are involved in the present writ petition which requires evidence. This Court, in writ jurisdiction, cannot decide the factual dispute. 11. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court thinks that it would be just and proper if the case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority to decide the issue afresh. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. Part of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.6.2009 passed by District Judge, Tehri, whereby the proceedings against the respondent company has been set aside finally on the ground that evidence was not adduced by the parties, is set aside. Case is remanded back to the learned Prescribed Authority to start the proceedings de novo taking into consideration subsequent events. Before that, learned Prescribed Authority shall give opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence to the parties and shall also decide the pending application of the respondent company by which the respondent company has prayed to implead THDC as party.