JUDGMENT K.M. Josseph, C.J. (Oral) These writ petitions, 41 in number, raise common questions and, hence, we are deciding the same by the following common judgment. 2. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in this Court as Writ Petition (PIL) No. 16 of 2012. The prayer sought in the said Public Interest Litigation was to take major steps for smooth functioning of the drainage system in rainy seasons after removing the illegal encroachment over the Laxmi Minor Irrigation Canal, which passes through mid (middle) of Kashipur city. In the said Public Interest Litigation, this Court had passed certain orders, which are relevant to be appreciated in order to resolve the disputes projected in these writ petitions. It is pertinent to extract two orders in particular. They are order dated 17.09.2012 and order dated 17.12.2012. We extract the same as under respectively: “Darona Sagar Canal passes through the town of Kashipur. Irrigation department of the State is responsible for maintaining this canal as the same also belongs to it. In the present Public Interest Litigation, it has been contended that this canal is not being properly maintained and dredged, there has been encroachments on the canal and, as a result, water, accumulated during rainy season, do not get a channel of outflow, which, in turn, inundates the city. The said contention is now supported by the report of the special officers appointed by the Court. We wanted Nagar Palika Parishad to produce a map of this canal so as to ascertain the situation thereof as well as importance of the same in the matter of acting as an outlet of water accumulated in the city during rainy season. That map has been produced. It appears from the map that the canal plays a great role in the matter of allowing water, accumulated in the city during rainy season, to go out therefrom. Various affidavits have been filed by the private respondents, wherefrom, it appears that this canal, which was originally 26 feet wide, has been narrowed down to a large extent. This has happened because of unjust apathy on the part of Nagar Palika Parishad as well as Irrigation Department of the State. It is surprising that people have said that they have been permitted by the Municipal Board to cover the canal by placing slabs in order to facilitate ingress and egress to and from their properties. This has happened because of unjust apathy on the part of Nagar Palika Parishad as well as Irrigation Department of the State. It is surprising that people have said that they have been permitted by the Municipal Board to cover the canal by placing slabs in order to facilitate ingress and egress to and from their properties. It has been submitted by some of the respondents that RCC lintels have been constructed over the canal. 2. Learned counsel for one of the respondents has submitted that the Irrigation Department itself has reduced the width of the canal by constructing two walls on two sides of the canal. 3. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department is directed to sit with the officers of Nagar Palika Parishad with the original map of the said canal within two weeks from today. They shall jointly inspect the said canal passing through the city, and ascertain the current position of the canal, encroachments, if any, made thereon, i.e. whether the width of the canal has been reduced or not, and, if so, where and to what extent and, at the same time, ascertain what steps are required to be taken for restoration of the canal to its original position and report back to this Court. 4. List five weeks hence. 5. Personal appearance of the Executive Officer is dispensed with, inasmuch as, he has produced the map of the canal.” ************* “With the Misc. Applications, two affidavits have been filed. In one, the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Uttarakhand has informed this Court that the canal in question was constructed by the Municipal Corporation in 1901 and, accordingly, the original map of the canal is available with the Municipal Corporation only. 2. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has submitted that the blueprint of the map has already been furnished in Court, but the learned counsel is not sure, whether that is the copy of the original map. According to the other affidavit filed by the State, comparing with the records of the Revenue Department, now the length and breadth of the canal has been reconstructed and, on the basis thereof, it transpired that there are 132 encroachers on the canal. 3. The District Administration is directed to remove those encroachers, but, while doing so, they must initiate proceedings under the Pubic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. 3. The District Administration is directed to remove those encroachers, but, while doing so, they must initiate proceedings under the Pubic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. Notices in that regard must be issued within a month from today. The appropriate authority under the said Act is directed to conclude those proceedings as quickly as possible, but not later than six months from the date of issuance of the notice. The District Magistrate is directed to place before this Court the outcome of those proceedings. 4. List the writ petition seven months hence. 5. Copies of these affidavits be handed over to the counsel for all the parties.” 3. Incidentally, we should also notice that the Court had earlier, by order dated 17.07.2012, appointed Commissioners for the purpose of inspecting the locality and to submit the report. A report was submitted by the Commissioners. Pursuant to order dated 17.12.2012, proceedings were initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Petitioners were issued notices. Thereafter, the authority under the Act passed orders against the petitioners and directed removal of the encroachment from the water body in question. The matter was carried by the petitioners in statutory appeal before the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. The appellate authority affirmed the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that the writ petitions have been filed purportedly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard Mr. M.C. Bansal and Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in some of the writ petitions and also Mr. Pankaj Miglani and Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioners in other writ petitions. Besides, we have also heard Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, learned counsel on behalf of the Local Body and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 5. Mr. M.C. Bansal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, would submit that this is a case, where the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not apply. He drew our attention to the document produced as Annexure No. 9 in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2149 of 2013. According to him, the canal in question is not vested either in Irrigation Department or in the Local Body. Instead, it is a property of a former Zamindar. He drew our attention to the document produced as Annexure No. 9 in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2149 of 2013. According to him, the canal in question is not vested either in Irrigation Department or in the Local Body. Instead, it is a property of a former Zamindar. He would submit that this is borne out by the fact that Annexure No. 9 shows that it is issued as khewat. He would submit that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 6. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel, drew our attention to the orders dated 17.09.2012 and 17.12.2012, which we have already extracted. He would submit that this Court had only directed the institution of proceedings under the Act. He took us through the deposition of the officer belonging to the Irrigation Department, as also the deposition of the officer of the Local Body. In particular, he drew our attention to the following statements (as per translated version): “The Gool in question is not our property. Nor is the ownership of the said land recorded in the name of our Department in Revenue records. It is recorded as gool and in the Khatauni the ownership is recorded in the name of Sh. K.C. Singh member of Parliament. It is correct that breadth of the Gool in all original records including road by its side is shown as 12 feet and on the part thereof it is 12 feet including the road is available. And at places it is more also. The Nagar Palika has placed slabs on the Gool and has covered it. If gool is cleaned after removing slabs the problem of water logging will get solved by itself. It is correct that the construction of the respondent is not over the Gool. From Katoratal Police Station to Ratan Cinema Road the width of the Gool is 5 to 6 feet and the road is a cemented road adjacent to the Gool is a permanent road. Which has a width of 10 feet at some places and 20 feet at others, which we have not measured. We have issued notices in the name of few other people besides the ones directed by the High Court. The Notices have been issued on the said of the survey. It would be wrong to say that the respondent has encroached on the public land…” “Nagar Palika Kashipur is not owner of the Gool. We have issued notices in the name of few other people besides the ones directed by the High Court. The Notices have been issued on the said of the survey. It would be wrong to say that the respondent has encroached on the public land…” “Nagar Palika Kashipur is not owner of the Gool. The Nagar Palika Kashipur has no such paper or document which proves that the Gool in regards to which the present case is going on has been given / directed to be taken care by the Nagar Palika by the irrigation department Kashipur. It is not in my knowledge whether the slabs in front of A.R. Rehman were put or not by the Nagar Palika. This Gool from Katoratal Police Station till Lucky Corner is covered by slabs. If these slabs are removed and the Gool is cleaned the problem of water logging will not occur. Width of Gool from Bans Phodan Police Station to the shop at lucky corner is not known to me. Nagar Palika records also do not show what is the collective breadth of the Gool and the road. We did not measure the breadth of the canal road before submitting our report. I cannot say that from the house of Haji Jamshed till Lucky Corner the Gool and the road in the revenue map is shown as 12 feet and breadth at the spot the road and the canal is 25 feet…” 7. He would, then, draw our attention to the manner in which the issues, which have been raised by the petitioners, have been dealt with by the Prescribed Authority. We would extract the following portion from the translated version, which has been made available, of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority: “I have examined the case documents and have studied thoroughly all the evidences and have heard the oral argument of the Ld. Counsels for the appellant and defendant. Learned Counsel on behalf of the defendant in his arguments has stated that the concerned land does not fall under the ambit of Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 therefore the notice to the defendant is liable to be quashed. Counsels for the appellant and defendant. Learned Counsel on behalf of the defendant in his arguments has stated that the concerned land does not fall under the ambit of Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 therefore the notice to the defendant is liable to be quashed. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State in his verbal arguments before the Court has stated that the concerned land is under the illegal possession of the defendant and the land is protected for public use and use of State works and its care and maintenance is collectively taken by the Nagar Palika Kashipur and Irrigation Department Kashipur and that the Defendant who is an illegal occupant / encroacher should be evicted and the Government should be given lawful possession. And in this regard the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand vide its order dated 17.12.2012 has directed to evict the illegal encroachers by using lawful means. On the basis of present and through Investigation this is clear that the concerned land is a State Property and the Defendant has made illegal encroachment on the Ghool property and has obstructed the present Ghool. Hence I am satisfied from the available evidence on record that it will be in the interest of law that the illegal encroachment should be removed from the property and the government should be given ownership of the present land.” 8. Passing on to the consideration of the appeals, it is brought to our notice that the appellate authority has also not considered the matter as a statutory appellate authority should have. We extract the following portions from the translated version, which has been made available, of the judgment passed by the appellate authority: “Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that the parameters provided in the illegal chalani report are not very clear, is not properly dated and also does not specify as to by whom have it been filed and that a gross mistake has been committed by the learned Prescribed Authority in taking cognizance of the aforementioned report despite of it not being properly dated and no clear parameter mentioned. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant has also contended that proper procedural summery of the aforesaid land has not been done. Also no fixed boundary has been demarcated. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant has also contended that proper procedural summery of the aforesaid land has not been done. Also no fixed boundary has been demarcated. The map of the aforesaid land is not colored and thus makes it realty different to figure and as to in which part of the map the aforesaid land this over which the appellant is considered to house illegally encroached upon and is being forced to the eviction end. The appellant has acquired the aforesaid land through registered sale deed. It is legally wrong to only white members or waiting length and breadth and is not only the sufficient element without providing map along. This cannot be the sole observation on which the Subordinate Court could pass an eviction order and in doing so the court has made blatantly wrong reading of the law and the same is eligible to be set aside. Another contention from the appellant side is that the provisions of U.P. Premises Act, 1972 has not applicable to the aforesaid land. In this condition the decision / order passed by the Competent Sub-ordinate Court is legally and technically wrong. The State has contended that the Prescribed Authority after taking cognizance of the duly signed order sheet page no. 2 has passed an order dated 10.01.2013 to issue notice which is legal and is of duration of merge then 10 days. The order states that chalni report has been received from Executive Engineer Irrigation Block Kashipur and Executive Officer Nagar Palika Kashipur needed to be admitted in the Register and summons / notices to be issued to the respondents and objection affidavit has to be placed on dated 31.01.2013. The Court is of the view that the order for taking cognizance and admission in the register is lawful. State has also contended that Form ‘Ka’ under Section 4 of U.P. Public Premises Act, 1972 has been issued on this very date, duly signed by the Prescribed Authority and the same is legally acknowledge by the illegal occupant/appellant. This notice also contains the dimensions of the illegal occupant land and the same cannot be considered as illegal in any way form ‘Ka’ under section 4 has been analyses in which dimensions part Gul Lakshmpur Patti Minor, Mohalla Ganj, Maheshpur Kashipur extending 19 feet 10 inch in North-South distance and 10 feet 2 inch in East-West division with Mr. This notice also contains the dimensions of the illegal occupant land and the same cannot be considered as illegal in any way form ‘Ka’ under section 4 has been analyses in which dimensions part Gul Lakshmpur Patti Minor, Mohalla Ganj, Maheshpur Kashipur extending 19 feet 10 inch in North-South distance and 10 feet 2 inch in East-West division with Mr. Yasin on its east, Jay Bhagwan on its west, Mohd. Naeem on the North and Lakeshpur minor, Rajev Gram Ganj Maheshpura Khasra no. 240 which in fact the disputed land in the present case. The Court is of the view that no legal or technical mistake has happened without issuing this notice. State has also contended that the provisions of the U.P. Premises Act apply on this disputed land. Map is also attached to it. The Hon’ble High Court in writ petition (PIL) no. 16 of 2012, Anil Kumar Maheswari vs. State of Uttarakhand and others has passed the order: “The District Administration is directed to resume those encorachers land, while doing so, they must initiate proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act. Notice in that regard must be issued within a month from today.” Meanwhile thereby has arrived the Hon’ble High Court presuming that provisions of U.P. Premises Act are applicable to the aforesaid land. Hence this contention of the appellant carrier no force. State has also contended that the Evidence submitted in the case paper is conclusive, khatauni map is also submitted witness the proceedings, those are not rejected or ignored by appellant. Under these circumstances it is clear that the Sub-ordinate Court has made no mistake of law in passing the impugned order against the appellant/illegal occupant. The illegal occupant himself has also failed to establish as to on whose authority is he residing on the disputed land and how is he legally entitled to continue to reside on the disputed land.” 9. He would submit that, actually, the canal in question falls in a non-ZA Act area. There is no vesting of the land under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. He would also submit that Khasra No. 240 belonged to Sri K.C. Singh Baba. Therefore, there is no question of invoking the provisions relating to the Act in regard to the property in question and this question has not been considered. 10. Mr. He would also submit that Khasra No. 240 belonged to Sri K.C. Singh Baba. Therefore, there is no question of invoking the provisions relating to the Act in regard to the property in question and this question has not been considered. 10. Mr. Arvind Vashistha further pointed out that the revenue map is not produced and is not available to substantiate the case of the respondents. 11. It is submitted, on the other hand, by Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the Local Body, that the revenue map was available, but the map of the canal was not available and, having regard to the fact that the map of the canal was re-constructed, no objection can be taken to the orders passed. He would further submit that this is a land, which will vest in the Local Body being a public water body. He would also submit that proceedings were taken against various others and, apart from the 13 petitioners, others have removed the encroachment. He would submit that it is a perennial problem of water logging and it is absolutely necessary to remove the encroachments. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the other petitioners adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel. 13. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State, would submit that the canal, in part, is shown as recorded in the name of the Government. Parts of it are shown as recorded in the name of local agriculturists and further parts are shown as recorded in the name of private individuals. In fact, Mr. Davesh Bishnoi would point out that the name of Sri K.C. Singh Baba, who was a former king and Zamindar, continued to remain in the records and the name of the Local Body was not mutated and no advantage could be taken of that fact, as the water body is a public water body, which is vested. 14. It is true that this Court was seized of the Public Interest Litigation and it is also true that this Court had passed orders appointing Commissioners. The first thing to consider is, whether proceedings could be maintained under the Act. To maintain proceedings under the Act, the land in question must be public premises. 14. It is true that this Court was seized of the Public Interest Litigation and it is also true that this Court had passed orders appointing Commissioners. The first thing to consider is, whether proceedings could be maintained under the Act. To maintain proceedings under the Act, the land in question must be public premises. “Public premises” is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act as follows: “2(e) “Public premises” means any 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 the 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 that 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; but does not include, the Public Premises which are under the Administrative control of the Estate Department and which are occupied by, - (a) a Minister of the Government of Uttar Pradesh or a person given rank of a minister; (b) a Member of Parliament, a Member of Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh; (c) a non-Government organization, whether incorporated or registered or not; (d) a political party not recognized by the Election Commission of India; (e) a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, a trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1888 or any Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act or any employees’ association or any body of persons, whether incorporated or not; (f) any outfit or frontal or other organization of a Political Party, whether recognized or not; (g) any person who is not government servant, or who is allotted the Public Premises by virtue of his being office bearer or representative of a Society, Trust or any body of persons, whether incorporated or not.” 15. In fact, the word “premises” is defined earlier in Section 2(b) of the Act as follows: “2(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 outhouses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of a building; and (ii) any fittings or fixtures affixed 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 law relating to land tenures.” 16. We may incidentally straightaway notice that it would take in land covered by water, as also land appurtenant to any road maintained by the State Government; but, as it is pointed out by Mr. M.C. Bansal, learned Senior Counsel, it does not include the land, which, for the time being, is held by the tenure holder under any law relating to land tenures. Coming to the word “public premises”, the word embraces within its scope any land belonging to any local authority. It also includes, by virtue of clause (i), nazul land or other premises entrusted to the management of a local body as provided therein. At this juncture, it is also necessary to notice Section 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Section 1 reads as follows: “1. Short title, extent and commencement. – (1) This Act may be called the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. At this juncture, it is also necessary to notice Section 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Section 1 reads as follows: “1. Short title, extent and commencement. – (1) This Act may be called the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (2) It extends to the whole of the Uttar Pradesh except the areas which, on the 7th day of July, 1949, were included in a municipality or a notified area under the provisions of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act II of 1916) or a Cantonment, under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (U.P. Act II of 1924) or a Town Areas under the provisions of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914 (U.P. Act I of 1914): Provided that in relation to areas included in the Rampur Municipality, this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words and figures ‘7th day of July, 1949’ the words and figures ‘31st day of July, 1949’, were substituted therein: Provided further that where any area which on July 7, 1949 was included in a Municipality, Notified Area, Cantonment or Town Area, cease to be so included therein at any time after that date and no notification has been made in respect thereof under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 – (i) in case it has ceased to be so included at any time before June 29, 1971, this Act shall extend to such area from June 29, 1971; and (ii) in any other case, this Act shall extend to such area from the date on which the area ceases to be so included. (3) It shall come into force at once except in the areas mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 where it shall, subject to any exception or modification under sub-section (1) of Section 2, come into force on such date as the State Government may by notification in the Gazette appoint and different dates may be appointed for different areas and different provisions of this Act.” 17. Therefore, under sub-section (2), it would not apply to areas, which, on the 7th day of July, 1949, were included in a municipality or a cantonment or a notified area or a town area as provided therein, subject to the exceptions, which are provided in the provisos. It is also open to the Government to bring it into force on the basis of a notification by the Government. It is also necessary to notice the provisions contained in Section 116 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. It reads as follows: “116. Property vested in Municipality. – Subject to any special reservation made by the State Government, all property of the nature hereinafter in this section specified and situated within the municipal area shall vest in and belong to the Municipality, and shall, with all other property which may become vested in the Municipality, be under its direction, management and control, that is to say, - (a) all public town walls, gates, markets, slaughter-houses, manure and nightsoil depots and public buildings of every description which have been constructed or are maintained out of the municipal fund; (b) all public streams, lakes, springs, tanks, wells and works for the supply, storages and distribution of water for public purposes and all bridges, buildings, engines, materials and things connected therewith or appertaining thereto, and also any adjacent land not being private property appertaining to any public tank or well; (c) all public sewers, drains, culverts and water-courses, and all works, materials and things appertaining thereto; (d) all dust, dung, nightsoil, ashes, refuse, animal matter or filth or rubbish of any kind, or dead bodies of animals collected by the Municipality from the streets, houses, privies, sewers, cesspools or elsewhere or deposited in places appointed by the Municipality under Section 273; (e) all public lamps, lamp posts and apparatus connected therewith or appertaining thereto; (f) all land or other property transferred to the Municipality by the Government or by gift, purchase or otherwise for local public purposes; and (g) all public streets and the pavements, stones and other materials thereof, and also all trees, erections, materials, implements and things existing on or appertaining to such streets.” 18. Therefore, all public streams, lakes, springs, tanks, wells and works for the supply, storage and distribution of water for public purposes among other things under clause (b), as also all public sewers, drains, culverts and water-courses, and all works, materials and things appertaining thereto, would stand vested in the Municipality. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 would not apply. If this Act does not apply by reason of Section 1, then, it would mean that it would be property, which is included in a municipal area or a town area or a cantonment area or a notified area. There is, in fact, no dispute that the land in question or the canal in question is property falling within a municipal area and, therefore, it would not fall under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. When it comes to the question whether the property is vested in the Municipality under Section 116 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel, would point out that it would raise issues relating to fact and law, as it would have to be ascertained having regard to the specific evidence given in this case that the gool is not the property of the Irrigation Department or of the Local Body and the case is that it is shown in the record as property belonging to the Zamindar, namely, a private individual and, therefore, it will not stand vested under Section 116. 20. It is true that, in the evidence, both, the Assistant Engineer from the Irrigation Department as also the officer of the Nagar Palika have categorically stated that the property does not belong to the Irrigation Department or to the Nagar Palika, respectively; but the learned counsel for the Nagar Palika would submit that all that had happened was that the name of the Zamindar continued in the record, but that would not stand in the way of vesting of the property in the Local Body. 21. We have already noticed the manner in which the Prescribed Authority has dealt with the contentions. We have also seen how the appellate authority has appreciated the contentions. We are of the view that we cannot sustain the manner, in which the authorities have dealt with the issues. 21. We have already noticed the manner in which the Prescribed Authority has dealt with the contentions. We have also seen how the appellate authority has appreciated the contentions. We are of the view that we cannot sustain the manner, in which the authorities have dealt with the issues. The Prescribed Authority under the Act is a statutory authority endowed with very important duty of deciding issues in a lis, which are raised validly by the parties. It is expected to deal with the issues as a quasi-judicial body is expected to, as important property rights may fall to be decided by the authority. While it is true that encroachment on public property cannot, for a moment, be permitted or tolerated; a proper finding must be entered into that the property is, in fact, one, which attracts the provisions of the Act, if a contention is raised in this regard. We are, equally, unhappy with the manner in which the appellate authority has approached the issue. 22. We do notice that, in the Public Interest Litigation, orders were passed by this Court. The Public Interest Litigation is yet to be disposed of. The orders, which have been passed, are interlocutory orders. No doubt, the Court has had the assistance of the Commissioners. The Court has, in the order dated 17.12.2012, found that, on the basis of the re-construction done, there are nearly 132 encroachers; but, it is thereafter that the Court found that it is necessary to remove the encroachments on the basis of the provisions of the Act. Once the Court permitted the institution of proceedings under the Act, we would think that the orders passed and the observations made therein cannot be treated as binding the statutory authority and the appellate authority in regard to the questions, which may fall for consideration on the basis of materials and evidence adduced by the parties before them. In this case, as we have already noticed, the basis for the proceedings under the Act appears to be that the property is either vested in the Government or it is vested in the Local Body. We have already noticed the manner in which the officers have adduced evidence in the matter. We have also noticed the contentions of the petitioners that it is not a property, which attracts the Act being property in the name of the Zamindar. We have already noticed the manner in which the officers have adduced evidence in the matter. We have also noticed the contentions of the petitioners that it is not a property, which attracts the Act being property in the name of the Zamindar. We have also taken stock of the provisions contained in Section 116 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. In the circumstances of this case, we are left with no choice except to interfere with the impugned orders. At this stage, Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate, would submit that an opportunity may be given to adduce evidence in the matter. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the petitioners, also has a case that they are not in possession of the property in question. 23. In such circumstances, we would think that the impugned orders while cannot be sustained, an opportunity must be given to the parties to adduce evidence and it is for the authorities to consider the matter afresh without feeling bound by the observations made by this Court in the interim orders in the Public Interest Litigation, which we have already adverted to. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned orders will stand set aside; and the Prescribed Authority will re-consider the matter. The parties are given opportunity to adduce evidence. In view of the fact that the matter is pending for some time, we further direct that the matter should be concluded within a period of three months by the Prescribed Authority from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before it. The parties will be free to raise all the contentions. No order as to costs.