IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT rEnnou (227) N030“ /2010 IN THE MATTER OF: PETITIONER/ APPELLANT Mohd. Nashod Ahmad, S/o La’te Shri Jahur Ahmad, Aged 0b0U150 years, R/o Industrial Wmd, P.O. -Dhamfari. Districf- Dhamfari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NO.‘l/ RESPONDENT NO. 'l 1. The Estate Officer, Souih East Railway Managemeni Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhaiiisgarh RESPONDENT NO.2/ RESPONDENT NO. 2 2. Union of India, Through Chief Manager, South East Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w, m, / mm Wéwmméb u gw w 00 mwfiwm %ia¥f~?mm SB : Hon’hle Shri Manindra Mohan 29-04-201 0 Mr. Ankit Singhai, counsel for the p‘mtioner‘ ‘Ms. , ‘1€aushina All. counsel for respcndems on advance cupy unc‘ler instructions from Shri Amit Cham‘u‘mari, smacking counse} for re spundents. By this petition. under Article 227 legality and validity of ordar dated 18/03/2 9 of the Public ri‘emises (Eviction of unautl orized occupanwl Act. i971 (for sh of 1971 ") has been dismissed as ban'eé by ' Leamed eeunsel for the petitioner n akes We folé submissiarn. me first submission of learneé. c0un$el for the petitiener is that ‘ Shrivastava. J. the constim‘non of India, petitioner has assaiieé by which the petiiioner‘s appeal und View of the provi‘i ‘ns contained under Section 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation 's to be reckoned from the éate of publication of the order under Sub-Section 1 of Section 5 f the Act of 1971. It is submitteu J that though ‘1 the order was passed by the Estate Officer 22/08/68, the same was eé as required by Section 5 of Sub—Section 1. oniy on 8/0 O81 He therefore submits that the perioo of limitation would commence only horn 8/09 '08 anti not before that. it is submittec‘t that the appeai was initially filed on 12/09/08 befo the District Iudge. Raipur but later on District Judge, Raipur tide its order dated 23/09/G8 etarned the appeai r i Liberty L‘L . £ LO L'H.‘ um LL uie sali’ia before the District Judge, Dhamtari Wherea er the appea was presented on 24/G9/G8 hefore the District Judge, Dhamtari. The second niission of learned counsel for the petitioner though assuming that there was delay in ii the appeal, as the petitioner had also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitatio Act 1963, hy way of abundant caution leamed Court below was obliged to consider the sa Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the iudginent of Allahabad High Court in the case of Parma Nand Vs. Bistrict Judge Mirzapur and others [fuTR Submission of learned counsel for he respondent is that the perusal of impugned Kx order would show that the District Judge, R ipur returned the appeal on $i08/O9' Whereafter L ‘ 0 0 l i ‘ ‘o m . l- ' S' i ‘ WWWfiWW aTaIfa‘nm _ mmmw /\ the appeai was flied before the learned C0111 beiow after delav of ‘20 (lave and ihefefore appeal' was not fiied within the period of limi mien prescribed um’iei' the law. it ls submitteci that the finding of the leamea‘ Com below that the appeai was baned by limitation does mt su fer from any en'or much iess an error app arent on the ream and therefore the peiition i liable to be diemissed. A perusal of impugned order shows inat While considering as to whether the appeal was tiled Within the period of limitation or not. learned Court below has completely misdirected itself. A hare perusal of Section 9 of Sub-Section 2(a) shows that the appeai is required to be filed within 12 days h’om the date of pu heation of the ortier unéer Sub- Section 1 of Section 5. However, in the entire order. the learnesi Comt below while considerhig the case of the petitioner has computed the period of limitation from the udte of passing of the order without takmg into comideration the statutory provisions contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) ofthe Act, 197i. 'lhe facts of the ease are that initialb the appeal was filed before the District Judge Raipur. Later on, the same was returned and presented before the Court below. This aspect was not taken into consideration M’reover, it appears that the petitioner. by way of under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, it t‘ any, in 4‘tiling the a l. Though the impugied order records that the appeal is haired hy limitation, there is consideration of petitioners application for condonation of delay. The order does not efiect that any of the gounds raised hy the petitioner in the application for condonation f delay were considered. The order does not show that any satisfaction has been recorded the cause shown for delay is not sufficient. In View of the above discussion, th impugned order cannot he sustained and the same is therefore set aside. Learned Court be OW shail reconsider the entire matter afresl‘i, by taking into consideration the statutory provis ns contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in aCC'rdance with law. Faities shall appear before \. the Additional District Judge (F .T.C.), Dhanita‘ri on ‘ aw/ M» a s p a n’ i