JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral). By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7-9-2009 passed by respondent No.2, Prescribed Authority, Almora in Eviction Case No. 23/2007-08 State Vs. Gopal Singh as well as the judgment order dated 21.12.2010, passed by District Judge Almora, whereby the Eviction Appeal No. 3/2009, filed U/S 9 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that Patwari Ligudata Tehsil and District Almora filed a challani report before the Prescribed Authority/S.D.O. Almora with the allegations that the petitioner Gopal Singh has illegally constructed a shop/house over plot Nos. 1027 and 1029 of non-Z.A. of Khata No. 17, the land belonging to State of Uttarakhand which is reserved for pasture (in the category 9(3) and the land is of public utility. The petitioner has taken unauthorized occupation of the said land. 3. On the basis of challani report, the learned Prescribed Authority issued show cause notice U/S 4(1) of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 –hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The petitioner filed his objection on 13-8-2009 and alleged therein that a recommendation was sent Sub Divisional Officer to the Collector Almora for sanction of the grant of land in favour of petitioner under Government Grant and thereafter the land was sanctioned under Government Grant by Collector Bagashwar, but neither any sanction order nor a lease in favour of petitioner has been produced before the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, treating the petitioner as unauthorized occupant over public premises the Prescribed Authority passed eviction order to evict the petitioner from the premises in question. 4. Therefore, treating the petitioner as unauthorized occupant over public premises the Prescribed Authority passed eviction order to evict the petitioner from the premises in question. 4. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by Prescribed Authority, the petitioner preferred Eviction Appeal No. 3/2009 before the District Judge Almora, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on the ground that the land belongs to State and is of public utility and although the appellant alleges that there was recommendation of S.D.O. for grant the land in favour of petitioner, but no lease or sanction order has been filed and merely by recommendation of S.D.O. in favour of petitioner it cannot be presumed that grant/lease has been granted in favour of petitioner under Government Grant Act and the petitioner has no right and title over the land in dispute and he is occupying the land in dispute illegally. Hence this writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and orders passed by Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge. 6. By a perusal of notice issued to petitioner U/S 4(1) of the Act, it appears that the notice had been issued by the learned Prescribed Authority on the ground that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of land of Khasra No. 1027 and 1029 of Khara No.17 and the petitioner has constructed house/shop and garden and the said land is of public utility and belongs to State recorded in class 9(3) in revenue record. In his objection filed by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority the petitioner has accepted his occupation on the land in dispute but stated that the S.D.O. Bageshwar had recommended the sanction of lease in favour of petitioner under Government Grant Act and the file was forwarded to Collector Almora but the file is not traceable and as and when the filed will be traced the same shall be produced before the Prescribed Authority. But the petitioner has not produced any such grant/lease in his favour before the Prescribed Authority. Merely by making recommendation of lease in favour of petitioner by the S.D.O. it cannot be presumed that grant/lease has been made by competent authority in favour of petitioner and by not producing any grant/lease by the petitioner in his favour it clearly emerges out that no order of grant or lease in his favour has been made. Merely by making recommendation of lease in favour of petitioner by the S.D.O. it cannot be presumed that grant/lease has been made by competent authority in favour of petitioner and by not producing any grant/lease by the petitioner in his favour it clearly emerges out that no order of grant or lease in his favour has been made. The disputed land is admittedly a Gauchar land recorded in the name of State in class-9(3) in revenue record and there is no dispute that the land is recorded in the name of State and the land in dispute is of public utility and the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of that land. I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgments and eviction order which has been passed against the petitioner. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, three months time is granted to petitioner to vacate the premises in question and to remove his effects from it.