JUDGMENT : By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief’s, among others: (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice bearing case no. W/24/711/1 dated 15.04.2017, issued by the Estate Officer of Railway Department, Izatnagar, Bareilly (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to evict the petitioner from his house bearing no. 15/192, situated at line no. 17, Azad Nagar (Banbhulpura), Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, has challenged notice dated 15.04.2017 (Annexure 1 to the petition) issued by the Estate Officer and Sr. Divisional Engineer-I, Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railways, Izatnagar, Bareilly. Show cause notice has been given under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for brevity here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon paras 12 and 14 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Podduturi Vasantha Reddy & etc. vs. Estate Officer, Airports Authority of India, N.A.D. Hyderabad, AIR 2010 ANDHRA PRADESH 46, in support of his contention. Relevant extract of which is reproduced here-in-below: “12. …and in that view of the matter, based on the ex parte survey conducted, the respondents cannot invoke the provisions under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Having regard to the objective of the said Legislation and the provisions contained therein, it is designed and intended for ordering evictions and removal of encroachments in cases where there is no dispute with regard to title and possession of the property in question. The powers conferred on the authorities under the said Legislation are only to order eviction and removal of constructions with regard to premises which belong to them. The powers conferred on the authorities under the said Legislation are only to order eviction and removal of constructions with regard to premises which belong to them. But in cases, where there is a bona fide dispute with regard to title/boundaries of the land belonged to the Government or its Corporations or Companies, such disputes are outside the scope of said Legislation, and the authority constituted under the said enactment cannot be said to have jurisdiction to embark upon the domain of the Civil Court for the purpose of adjudicating civil disputes, the power of which, is exclusively vested in such Courts, and it would be unreasonable to allow such authority to decide such disputes by invoking the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which provides for a summary procedure to conduct inquiry and order for eviction and removal of constructions. In that view of the matter, when the said provisions are read with reference to the object of the Legislation, it is clear that the said piece of Legislation never intended to give its authorities the power to decide such complicated questions of title disputes, so as to decide the same by passing orders under Section 5 of the said Act… 14. In another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of Govt. of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao ( AIR 1982 SC 1081 ), while elaborately considering the scope of similar such provision under Sections 6 and 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “The summary remedy for eviction which is provided for by S.6 of the Act can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in unauthorized occupation of any land which is the property of Government”. If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by S.6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title. The summary remedy prescribed by S.6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated question of title. The summary remedy prescribed by S.6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated question of title. Held, that the question as to the title to the three plots could not appropriately be decided in a summary inquiry contemplated by Ss.6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title of those plots raised a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering specially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibudin from whom the respondents claimed to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession had to be decided in a properly constitute suit and until the Government succeeded in establishing its title to the property, the respondents could not be evicted summarily.” 4. Reliance is also placed upon para 7 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another, along with connected civil appeals, AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1081. Relevant extract of said para reads as under: “It there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title. In the instant case, there is unquestionably a genuine dispute between the State Government and the respondents as to whether the three plots of land were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings taken by the then Government of Hyderabad and whether the Osmania University, for whose benefit the plots are alleged to have been acquired, had lost title to the property by operation of the law of limitation. The suit filed by the University was dismissed on the ground of limitation, inter alia, since Nawab Habibuddin was found to have encroached on the property more than twelve years before the date of the suit and the University was not in possession of the property at any time within that period. Having failed in the suit, the University activated the Government to evict the Nawab and his transferees summarily, which seems to us impermissible. The respondents have a bona fide claim to litigate and they cannot be evicted save by the due process of law. The summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title. That procedure is, therefore, not the due process of law for evicting the respondents.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 placed reliance upon paras 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 297 of 2007 (M/B), titled as Km. Anju Rekhi vs. Cantonment Executive Officer decided on 13.06.2007. Said paras are reproduced here-in-below for convenience: “16. The law is well settled that writ petition against a show-cause notice, ordinarily, is not to be entertained. The Hon’ble Apex Court in several decisions has held that writ petition should not be entertained against a show-cause notice and at that stage, the writ petition may be held to be premature. The writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Special Director & another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 , observed in para 5: “5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court…..” 18. The Apex Court in the case of Trade Tax Officer, Sharanpur vs. Royal Trading Co. reported in (2005) 11 SCC 518 , reiterating the same view, observed in para 1: “1. These appeals are against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 21.01.2000. The respondent Company were clearing their goods on the basis that they were leather sheets within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. A show-cause notice was issued to them claiming that the items cleared by them were not leather sheets and that a higher duty was required to be paid. The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the issuance of the show-cause notice. The High Court ignoring the well-settled law that against a mere issuance of a show-cause notice a court should be reluctant to interfere, purported to go into the facts and quashed the show-cause notice in a mechanical way. In our view the approach of the High Court was entirely wrong. All that had been done was that a show-cause was issued. After the respondents filed their reply, the notice may have been dropped or if the reply was not satisfactory based on the reply further inquiries could have been made by the appellants. Adjudication proceedings must not be stalled in the manner done by the High Court.” 19. All that had been done was that a show-cause was issued. After the respondents filed their reply, the notice may have been dropped or if the reply was not satisfactory based on the reply further inquiries could have been made by the appellants. Adjudication proceedings must not be stalled in the manner done by the High Court.” 19. In our opinion, the writ petition is premature as the petitioner, instead of filing reply to the show-cause notice, has rushed to the High Court by filing this writ petition in undue haste.” 6. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Harish Kumar vs. Union of India and others, 2017 (1) U.D. 149, wherein in para 32 of said judgment it has been held as under: “By way of filing application under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and a complaint dated 30.05.2011 received from the office of President Body Guard, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi, respondent nos. 1 and 2 set the ball rolling by filing certain documents to show that the petitioners are not the tenants of the Nagar Nigam, but are unauthorised occupants in the property of respondent nos. 1 and 2. In support of such contention respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed an extract from MLR, extract from revenue plan, site plan showing the unauthorized construction by encroaching on defence land ad report dated 20.05.2011 of Sub. Major B.P. Singh, Assistant Garrison Engineer (B/R-I), Military Engineer Service, Dehradun. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have, therefore, done their job, by setting the ball rolling that the petitioners are un-authorized occupants over the property of respondent nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners, on the other hand, have failed to negotiate such a contention of respondent nos. 1 and 2, by filing any evidence. It has already been stated above that Nagar Nigam has left the petitioners in lurch by not filing the appeal against the order of the Estate Officer. Even if during the course of proceedings, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any documents, nevertheless, the fact remains that such documents were already filed by them along with the complaint addressed to the Estate Officer. Even if during the course of proceedings, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any documents, nevertheless, the fact remains that such documents were already filed by them along with the complaint addressed to the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer as well as the learned Lower Appellate Court has appreciated the evidence appropriately in accordance with Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 of Rules of 1971. The initial burden has been discharged by respondent no. 1 by enclosing the documents with the complaint addressed to the Estate Officer that the petitioners are the unauthorised occupants in their property, which the petitioners have failed to negotiate satisfactorily during the course of proceedings. The petitioners have although shifted the burden to Nagar Nigam by stating in wring that they are the tenants of Nagar Nigam, but such a plea was not accepted by the Estate Officer.” 7. Normally, this Court should not interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, in such matters in view of Section 4 of the Act, in which complete mechanism has been provided from show cause notice upto the order of eviction. It will be useful to reproduce Section 4 of the Act here-in-below for convenience: “4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction. –[(1) If the estate officer has information that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that he should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing within seven working days from the date of receipt of the information regarding the unauthorised occupation calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.] [(1A) If the estate officer knows or has reasons to believe that any person is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall forthwith issue a notice in writing calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.]. [(1B) Any delay in issuing a notice referred to sub-sections (1) and (1A) shall not vitiate the proceedings under this Act.] (2) The notice shall – (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and [(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises, - (i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not later than seven days from the date of issue thereof; and (ii) to appear before the estate officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.] (3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.” 8. Thus, in normal course, the petitioner is required to appear before the Estate Officer on the date specified in the notice along with evidence which she intends to produce in support of her case and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired. 9. Section 5 of the Act deals with eviction of unauthorised occupants. 10. The facts of the instant case are slightly different. Annexure 7 is a copy of lease deed executed on 22.04.1939 between the Secretary for State for India in council on one part and Sabir Hussain Zaidi (lessee) on the other, enclosing the site plan in which the boundaries are given as below: North - Notified Area Committee wasteland East - Notified Area Committee wasteland West - Street South - Plot no. 1. 9. The area is admeasuring 50 ft. x 25 ft. and is known as plot no. 1A. Annexure 8 indicated that Sabir Hussain executed a sale deed in favour of Abdul Aziz Khan on 28.12.1943. (Learned counsel for the respondent North Eastern Railways submitted that Sabir Hussain has no transferrable right and, therefore, he has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Abdul Aziz Khan. and is known as plot no. 1A. Annexure 8 indicated that Sabir Hussain executed a sale deed in favour of Abdul Aziz Khan on 28.12.1943. (Learned counsel for the respondent North Eastern Railways submitted that Sabir Hussain has no transferrable right and, therefore, he has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Abdul Aziz Khan. This question is not under adjudication before the writ court in present writ petition.). 10. Abdul Aziz Khan executed sale deed in favour of Smt. Dilshad Parveen (petitioner herein) on 29.10.1976 (Annexure 9 to the petition). The measurement of land in all these documents is the same. Annexure 10 is a letter issued by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Haldwani in favour of present petitioner to show that her name has been mutated in relation to house no. 15/195 situated at Line no. 17, Azad Nagar, Haldwani. It was also informed that her name has been recorded for fiscal purposes. Prescribed Authority Regulated Area of Haldwani has sanctioned the site plan of the petitioner for constructing a house on the aforesaid land (Annexure 11 to the petition). Annexure 12 is the copy of site plan. Petitioner took a loan from Bank of Baroda, Sharda Market Branch, Haldwani. The bank issued ‘No Encumbrance Certificate’ to the petitioner (Annexure 13 to the petition). Other documents have been field in support thereof. 11. In view of the above, the notice issued by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in respect of land admeasuring 50 ft x 25 ft., boundaries of which are being given as above, is discharged in the exceptional circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that this Court has not given any finding in respect of any piece of land over and above the same. If the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises, except the land, a description of which has been given by this Court in the aforementioned paragraphs of the judgment, respondent nos. 1 to 4 are at liberty to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, in accordance with law. 12. This disposes of the writ petition at the admission stage.