WWW-arm mm w..:f....§.7::.7.2?i§...%?"‘7W V1200 en Rizoo mm MW (Wu) mafsam l WW§12€TW $aifcmanéw the sub Divisional} Offmel’, Durg vide arcier of Annexure P43 (lama 4— i-zuUa on the gro 1d that the appellant haS not Shown sumaent reason for mordi ate delay for more than two vears in preIelTing the appeai. Tl' e second appeai preferred bv The petitioner was also dism ssed by the Upper Collector vide Annexure P—4 datedv4—S—2 '08. 1t ls argued on beha f of the petitioner that the order of Annexune P-i was not nasaed on 13—9—2635 as mentioned in the order sheet and it was pas‘sed behind the back of the petitioner, which would be evident from the fact that the concerned ’1'ensi1dar vide Lmnsmnal Forest Officer, Burg that eviction proceeding against snyamlal Dhankar for encroachment is pending in his Court. The above fact was brought to the notice of the Sub Divisionai Unicer as also the Uppef Collector, but the same wasnot consmered and the appeal was summarilv dismissed on the From perusal of the record, it is evident that the order of passed on 13—9-2005 whereby the order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner, however from perusal of the memo dated 30—3—2066 written bv J 30—3—2006 communicated the 11161110 GEI€C1 ground 01 limitation.- 'l‘ahsildar is shown to be @ i en I w .Q. Q117)N0. 11‘“ 08 o mm aiz o ~mm () W