JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court aggrieved by the orders by the Prescribed Authority passed under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) wherein it has been declared that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of public premises and he has thus been ordered to be evicted, as well as by order in appeal under Section 9 of Act (before the learned District Judge Nainital), which was been dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The land in dispute is within the municipal limits of Nagar Palika Haldwani, which is presently a corporation i.e. Nagar Nigam. According to the State authorities the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of public premises, he was hence given notice under Section 4 of the Act on 26.04.2004. The petitioner sought time to file his reply/objections but since it was not done, the matter proceeded ex-parte against him where an ex-parte order was passed on 28.02.2005, declaring him unauthorized occupant of the public premises. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Nainital. His appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authorities vide order dated 25.10.2005 as the petitioner was not heard by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authorities after hearing the objection of the petitioner on record passed an order on 19.01.2006 declaring the petitioner to be an unauthorized occupant of the public premises, an order upheld in appeal. 3. There are various grounds of challenge to the aforesaid two orders. The petitioner rests his claim on ground that the premises in question is neither a “public premises” nor is he an “unauthorized occupant”, as defined under the Act. 3. There are various grounds of challenge to the aforesaid two orders. The petitioner rests his claim on ground that the premises in question is neither a “public premises” nor is he an “unauthorized occupant”, as defined under the Act. We will deal with the definition of both the “Public Premises” as well as the “Unauthorized Occupant”, which is given under the Act later but presently what is necessary to state at this juncture is that another grounds of challenge of the two orders by the petitioner is that the suit for permanent injunction was filed way back in the year 1985 being Civil Suit No. 59 of 1985 before the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani, District Nainital by one Moti Ram, who claims certain tenure rights over the property, as he was being evicted by the State authorities. He had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Nagar Palika, Haldwani as well as State authorities. In that suit there is undoubtedly a finding that Shri Moti Ram is not an unauthorized occupant of the property, in fact, he is legally occupying the property. There is also a finding that the State Government or the Nagar Palika are presently not in possession of the property concerned, and on this ground suit was decreed observing that in case the State authorities have a claim on the property, they are always at liberty to proceed under Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. 4. According to the learned Additional Advocate General Shri Avtar Singh Rawat, who appears for the State in the present matter, since there was an observation of the trial court wherein liberty was given to the State Authorities to proceed under Public Premises Act no appeal was filed against the order of the trial court. Thereafter a notice was given under Section 4 of the Act. The details of which had already referred above. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the State Authorities could not have proceeded under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises Act on ground of res judicata, and estoppel. This we shall deal first. As far as estoppel is concerned, the same has absolutely no application on the facts of the present case. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the State Authorities could not have proceeded under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises Act on ground of res judicata, and estoppel. This we shall deal first. As far as estoppel is concerned, the same has absolutely no application on the facts of the present case. The State Government has been able to establish that it is a Government property or “Nazul land” therefore, estoppels has no application, nor has it been shown that there were even a permission of written or any order by the government in favour of the petitioner to occupy the premises in question. As far as res judicata is concerned it has to be noticed that the earlier suit was filed by one Shri Moti Ram, and he is presently not in occupation of the property in question. No notice was given to Shri Moti Ram. He also did not appear in the present proceedings either before the Prescribed Authority or before the District Judge, Nainital, nor is he a party before this Court. The principle of res judicata is also therefore not applicable in the present case. 6. The petitioner claims his rights on the basis of entry, which is under category 10, which is of a “non occupancy tenant.” He does not derive any right from Shri Moti Ram, in fact, nothing has been shown before this Court that he had any authority from Shri Moti Ram. He simply states to be in occupation of the property in question. The rights of non occupancy tenant are in any case are weak rights. In the records which has been placed before this Court regarding the owner of the property, the name of the Municipal Board has been shown throughout. 7. The question is still whether the premises in question is outside the purview of the Act. The rights of non occupancy tenant are in any case are weak rights. In the records which has been placed before this Court regarding the owner of the property, the name of the Municipal Board has been shown throughout. 7. The question is still whether the premises in question is outside the purview of the Act. The “Premises” is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, which reads as under:- ““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.” Thereafter, “Public Premises” defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, which reads as under:- ““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 or 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.” 8. A perusal of the aforesaid Act, which clearly demonstrate that the Nazul land is also a public premises under the Act. Moreover regarding the same category of land, which is also in “Haldwani” where the present land is also located there is already a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, which has settled the controversy. The judgment in question is Intezar Hussain and another Vs The State of Uttarakhand & others reported in 2013 (1) U.D. 581 wherein the matter arises from the same Act and the unauthorized occupant ultimately approached this Court by means of the above writ petition. The land is of a similar nature and is also in Haldwani, as is the present case. All the grounds raised by the petitioner before this Court in the present case were also discussed in the above case. It must be stated from the point of repetition that the land in question is also the same category of land in the same town i.e. “Haldwani” district- Nainital. 9. There is a reference of a Government order dated 17.05.1907, which clearly states that the land in question at Haldwani Khas is a Nazul land and is transferred under the management and control of Municipal Board, Haldwani. This letter is prior to the imposition of either U.P. Tenancy Act or under the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short “UPZA & LR Act”) which came into force in the year 1939 and 1950 respectively. 10. Let us deal with U.P.Z.A & L.R Act first. U.P.Z.A & L.R Act is applicable to all areas, inter alia it excluded the area within the municipality limit. Since admittedly the land in question falls within the municipality limits, the provision of U.P.Z.A&L.R Act will not be applicable in the present case and the rights which have been otherwise given to other tenure holders cannot claim by any person even though if he is in occupation of such land. 11. Another point raised by the petitioner before this Court is that the land in question is not a Nazul land. 11. Another point raised by the petitioner before this Court is that the land in question is not a Nazul land. He has relied upon the definition of “Nazul Land”, which reads as follows:- “Nazul- For the purposes of these rules, ‘nazul’ means any land or building which, being the property of Government is not administered as a State property under the control of the Land Reforms Commissioner or the Forest or the Irrigation Department, or is not under the control of the Military, Postal, Telegraph, Railway or other purely Central Government Department. The Tarai and Bhabar estates in the Nainital District, the Garhwal Bhabar estates in the Garhwal District and the Kausani Soldiers’ Settlement in the Almora and Garhwal districts are also not nazul for the purpose of these rules. These rules are, however, applicable to territories of late Tehri Garhwal, Rampur and Banaras States merged with this State.” 12. Thereafter it has been contended that such land, there is no such Nazul land at Haldwani. This aspect has also dealt by the learned Single Judge (case already referred above), as the reference of which would be necessary in the present case. Following paragraphs of WPMS No. 919 of 2007, reads as under:- “12) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the definition of Nazul land, which is given in Rule 1 of Nazul Rules. Rule 1 defines “Nazul” as under:- “1. Definition of Nazul- For the purposes of these rules, ‘nazul’ means any land or building which, being the property of Government is not administered as a State property under the control of the Land Reforms Commissioner or the Forest or the Irrigation Department, or is not under the control of the Military, Postal, Telegraph, Railway or other purely Central Government Department. The Tarai and Bhabar estates in the Nainital District, the Garhwal Bhabar estates in the Garhwal District and the Kausani Soldiers’ Settlement in the Almora and Garhwal districts are also not nazul for the purpose of these rules. These rules are, however, applicable to territories of late Tehri Garhwal, Rampur and Banaras States merged with this State.” It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that the Tarai and Bhabar estates of Nainital District, are not included for the purposes of Nazul Rules. These rules are, however, applicable to territories of late Tehri Garhwal, Rampur and Banaras States merged with this State.” It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that the Tarai and Bhabar estates of Nainital District, are not included for the purposes of Nazul Rules. 13) However, above definition of “Nazul” does not say that there is no nazul land (land of Government administered as a State property in the Municipal areas since British period) in the Tarai and Bhabhar Estates of District Nainital. What definition clarifies is that the Nazul rules would not be applicable to such estates. The impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not under Nazul Rules/ Nazul Manual (which in fact compilation of various Government orders).” 13. An “unauthorized occupation” is defined under Section 2(g) of the Act, which is as follows: 2(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. The petitioner has not been able to show any evidence of the fact that he is occupying “public premises” under some authority. His status is nothing but that of an “unauthorized occupant”. 14. Another important aspect which has been highlighted by the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat before this Court that the land being a Government land/Nazul land has already been allotted vide order dated 03.05.1985 to the Department of Health for construction of a Women Hospital, which is urgently required at Haldwani. Therefore, in public interest as well, the land is to be used for the public at large. However, as the petitioner is in occupation of the land, it is difficult for the State Authorities to evict the petitioner from the premises in question. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, no interference is required in the impugned orders dated 19.01.2006 and 03.04.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority respectively. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. The District Magistrate/Collector is hereby directed to take immediate physical possession of the land, after adopting due process of law.