HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7194 of 2025 Along with : 1. Matters Under Article 227 No. 7199 of 2025: Bhupendra Vikram Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Collector Raibareli and another Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Gopesh Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. 2. Petition under Article 227 No.7194 of 2025 has been filed challenging the validity of an order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate, Raebareli under section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 in Case No.940 of 2023 ordering eviction of the petitioner from shop No.3 situated in Chandrachud Market, Chandapur Kothi, near Super Market, Raebareli. Petition under Article 227 No.7199 of 2025 has been filed challenging the validity of an order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate, Raebareli under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 in Case No.942 of 2023 ordering eviction of the petitioner from shop No.4 situated in Chandrachud Market, Chandapur Kothi, near Super Market, Raebareli 3. The petitioners had filed Civil Appeal No.42 of 2025 and 44 of 2025 respectively, both of which have been dismissed by means of separate similar judgment and orders dated 18.11.2025 and the validity of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gopesh Tripathi, Himanshu Pandey, Hrishabh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shashi Bala Agarwal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Raibareli And Another .....Respondent(s) appellate orders have also been assailed by this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 8 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 vests the prescribed authority and the appellate officers the same powers are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) any other matters which may be prescribed. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the act confers powers of civil court on the prescribed authority under appellate authority, they are under a corresponding duty to act as a civil court while deciding a lis and ordering eviction of any person from a premises. He has submitted that the prescribed authority has not taken any evidence in support of the allegation that the premises is a public premises and the petitioners are in its authorized occupation. They have submitted that the impugned orders have been passed merely acting upon the report of the Lekhpal, without the Lekhpal having appeared as a witness, his statement on oath having been recorded and the petitioners having been granted an opportunity to cross- examine the witness. 6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that it is recorded in the order dated 02.01.2025 that statement of the Lekhpal was recorded and the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross-examine him. 7. Refuting this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order refers to the report of the Lekhpal as his statement and his statement on oath has not been recorded and that is the reason that in the instructions provided to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, merely a copy of the order has been provided wherein it is stated that statement of Lekhpal was recorded but copy of no such statement has been provided. 8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the entire record before this Court which though contains statement of Lekhpal, the A227 No. 7194 of 2025 2 same has not been recorded on oath. It contains a statement of Lekhpal in writing which has been authenticated by his signature and seal. This statement does not disclose that it has been recorded on oath. Further, it does not indicate that it has been recorded before the prescribed authority as it does not bear the signatures of the prescribed authority. Prima facie it appears that a written statement of the Lekhpal which has been signed and sealed by him, has been put on record of the prescribed authority rather an oral statement given on oath before the prescribed authority having been recorded on the paper book. 9. In these circumstances, the petitioners had no occasion to cross-examine the Lekhpal. 10. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate, Raebareli under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 in Case Nos.940 of 2023 and 942 of 2023 stand quashed. 11. The matter is remanded to the prescribed authority/City Magistrate, Raebareli for deciding afresh after recording statement of witnesses on oath and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for examining the witnesses, in accordance with law, expeditiously and the petitioners are directed to co- operate in expeditious disposal of the proceedings. December 19, 2025 -Amit K- A227 No. 7194 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench