JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the judgment and order dated 11.5.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Nainital in Eviction Appeal No. 3 of 2014, Mahendra Singh Mehta vs. State of Uttarakhand as well as the Eviction order dated 02.8.2014, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Dhari (Nainital) in Eviction Case No. 27/07 of 2009-10, State vs. Mahendra Singh Mehta (Annexure nos. 3 & 6). 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is an owner having bhumidhari rights of land situated in Village Babiyad, Patti Babiyad, Tehsil Dhari, District Nainital at Khasra No. 3640 area 0.0710 hectare of Khata No. 108 since the day of his forefathers. On 27.9.2010, the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Dhari (Nainital) issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 4 (1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 that the State of Uttarakhand is owner of the land of Khasra No. 3641e situated at village Babiyad and the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the said land. It is pertinent to mention here that the said notice was served upon the petitioner on 10.10.2010. An eviction case no. 27/2007 of 2009-10 State vs. Mahendra Singh Mehta was registered against the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Dahri (Nainital). The petitioner through his lawyer appeared in the said case and filed his objection, but, later on, the petitioner’s counsel did not appear in the said case and this information was never given to the petitioner, hence the evidence could not lead in the said matter and the case was proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. On 02.8.2014 the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Dhari (Nainital) decided the Eviction Case No. 27/07 of 2009-10 ex-parte and without any evidence an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner. After passing eviction order a notice dated 02.8.2014 under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 issued to the petitioner and compelled to vacate the land in question within 30 days. Against the order dated 02.8.2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Dhari (Nainital) in Eviction Case No. 27/07 of 2009-10, the petitioner preferred an appeal before District Judge, Nainital, which was registered as Eviction Appeal No. 3 of 2014, Mahendra Singh Mehta vs. State of Uttarakhand. Against the order dated 02.8.2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Dhari (Nainital) in Eviction Case No. 27/07 of 2009-10, the petitioner preferred an appeal before District Judge, Nainital, which was registered as Eviction Appeal No. 3 of 2014, Mahendra Singh Mehta vs. State of Uttarakhand. After hearing the parties the learned District Judge, Nainital has stayed the eviction proceedings vide order dated 01.9.2014. However vide order dated 11.5.2016 the learned District Judge, Nainital dismissed the Eviction Appeal No. 3 of 2014 and affirmed the order dated 02.8.2014 passed by Prescribed Authority, Dhari (Nainital) whereby Form ‘B’ has been issued to the petitioner. The learned Prescribed Authority issued an illegal notice under Section 4 (1) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 to the petitioner without complying the mandatory provision of Section 4 (2) (b) of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. As per Section 4 (2) of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 minimum ten days’ notice is required before passing any order against the unauthorized occupant, but, in present case the mandatory notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1972 was issued on 27.9.2010 which was served upon the petitioner on 10.10.2010 by means of which called the petitioner to show cause on or before 16.10.2010 i.e. within six days which itself is illegal notice. The learned Prescribed Authority overlooked the provisions laid down under Section 9 of General Clauses Act that to compute a period, first day in a series of days has to be excluded, therefore, the issuance of notice and date of service of such notice have to be excluded for the purpose of computing the mandatory period of ten days of notice. The show cause notice does not comply the mandatory provisions of law enumerated under Section 4 (2) (b) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 as well as Section 9 of General Clauses Act, hence cannot be said to be a legal notice and, therefore, the entire proceedings and orders are illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that the controversy in hand has been resolved by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 03.4.2014 in Writ Petition No. 658 (M/S) of 2006. 4. Learned counsel for the State fairly conceded the aforesaid statement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that the controversy in hand has been resolved by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 03.4.2014 in Writ Petition No. 658 (M/S) of 2006. 4. Learned counsel for the State fairly conceded the aforesaid statement. 5. On bare perusal of the notice issued by the Prescribed Authority, on 27.9.2010, it would indicate that no date of service of such notice on the petitioner has been indicated. 6. Present writ petition is, therefore, decided in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 658 (M/S) of 2016 as follows: The show cause notice issued to the petitioner cannot be said to be a legal notice, and therefore, entire proceedings of order impugned stands vitiated. Present writ petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. However, respondent shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner de novo after serving proper legal notice to the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. 7. No order as to costs.