m me wt cum or Jwagtum gt} Buggpuzw,chhgtu$gmi mt Rtomi'm N0.,a i <9 7 $0111; gm mm) gmmwwmxb mwawom Imam wcm gay/m or arm camsmmmmn or mm, I‘m %‘e:wqtter B‘g‘mewx : gTETIO ER x chhattmanrh Hana? Mh‘ika’r‘ Miwhgmgllaamm‘mfhrom; ii'h‘. w " mahmmme‘ev -> R.K.Rmaey we » Iaie Sm; R.R.Pwdem.iged §5Mears ‘ Lmgiymiha,maha<ii'li &: Dist'h Bilaspllr,mTISGARm{o VER$U5 Union 0f Maia, throng; Genual Mimagew§omtm Eastern. Rail‘ww, Garden.» Eeanhwramutta‘a. (a) Emuiionnlt Rd‘lmsw Manager}, S. E. 31$”, Bi‘laapum, F. KM. -0ffi¢®,Ely.3&ttllwst Bil’aspum’mnhatu‘gauu (3:9 sr. mavmxonax Engimmcororan) SmmE.m.-o££meamw 382tt1iananzt,Bi;lasgur (GI. G. )y (4) Esawte ommews;Em, BilaSRurgc a. G. )f B/’/2¢ ‘ 1/ Q " ‘ mm(m) Hono MrcJustLce R S.Gax: J. / Shri. V.D.Bajpai learned Cotinsel for the petLtLonu: . Shri Meghnath Baner ;ee learned counsel ‘ for the respondents o’n caveat. ' Heard on the, question of admission“, By this petition sued undez; Article 226/227 of the/Qoiistitut..on of; In_dia, fhe petitio‘nera claiming to he an associat}on 4‘53 constituted for projecting the grievances Li 'certain persons who are holding land under certain licence issued hy the union of India through Railway wants to say than-illegal orders have been passed 13y the authorities under theprovisions of Public Premises (Ev1ction of Unauthorised‘Occupants)A-t, 19710 The petition also wants that this Court should examine the virus of the provisions of the séidAct.’ The petitioner by this tition further says’ that as its members haVe a right to enter into trade or earn their live ihood, this Court must interfere and set a ide the orders requir- ing eviction of the memb rs of the petitioner associationa Undis putedly, notic g der the proviSions w ’ r \ ’ GRPRJ—FS/4—4/99-2ODOO . en mm WW mafia ' WW 1z‘ém mmai‘aa I V wmm 1/3 Before. 6§2.2001 v Hon. MzgJust;ce W.A Skushak, CJ 5" XI—HC—22 i I of thefA‘ct were issued tQ the petitioner. .The Estat -due and proper 9pm§tunitq¢ to the parties ordered . j . evictic'm of the members o: order was confirmedjian ap] revisions filed by .the me: *were dismissed by the“ Higl ' One such order is ahriexed as Annexdre-A/E, passed 'Vix (Gaya Pras‘iaé Gupta v. Uhi( The quéstiors soiight to be were raised in' the’said cs paragraph 5 of the Said :§‘§preoiated the fpro'vi‘sioh and thereafter observed ‘In péxagraph 6, the High revision petition had “no rejection. A£ter oonSid rcons’ Ithe‘i-Iigh Court fog ‘evictio‘n passed against ”of the petitioner Wer'e:l with iaw; The High Cou consideration the occupe thememyers, of I " e" Qificer‘ after giving ‘ E the petitioner. The ‘ 3ea1 'and thereafter the abe-rs of the petitiorerf {Court of Madhye Pradesh'. in/ the petition itself 1 Civil Revision No.467/2000 m of Indie _& others) . raised before this Court Lvil revision and in dgrtent, the High Court of Secti'oh 3‘ o£ the Act fevo’u‘r of the respondents“ urt held that the , rite arfd tees‘er'ved e L n t 1 and were Hin‘ accordanee ’Vifurthergiaki’ng into hm“ “"N ‘V/ 1w s n .4 a e r L possess ion L$ more “W' i ‘ c e XI-HC-22 3 a aim-an, 'ChhttiSggh . B ilas pur a thanr two decades directed -t breathing ‘time for' inaii‘h‘é‘; aira ng'em'e nt . hat._they should? not - rding them some §ome5 altérnative those persons upto 317:1.20C t' grahted rt'ime to ounsel for the. petitioner ting in the Division ntire issue ' a'fresh‘ an by the Estate Officer _ 7 hold that the orders passec gand confirmed 1n the rev1sjlon petltion are llable to be quashed., We are afrc ' Clause 10 of the Letters P: tent proVides for/intra Court r appeal An appeal against passed/dellvered by an Honc the same High Court _ lie Ito a Division Benchof ed under the prQViSJ the order/juagment is cove (pf; ClagsehlO of the Letter in a.civil revision cannot v intraj-Courrt‘ appeal or‘ a'VLe interrerehce by' us at this amount to examining the co propriety of the orders pas ii. /J 8hr; Bajpa’i, learned c submits that th‘is Court sit Bench must re—examina thé'e The High Cour _l to vaeate‘the e‘emises. ,N d / d7b’e thro¢rih out; withoutiaffo id, we cannot do that. an the order/ Judgment lurable Single Juége would if Y7?” Patent xder passed An AHY stage would certainly rectness, validity and ‘ k. k . WW’ Chhéttisgayh, B ilas pur v / in thgse matters which othe wise have attained finality. We cannot upSet hat has already been settled by the High C t: It would not be out place to , mention V that some of the occupants ave evenotherwise £iled independeht writ peions in View of the directionsygiven in parag ph 6 of the order passed in the civil revisi After giving our sin e andvdue consider- ation to the matter at ha , we are unable to hold that the matter dese s to be aémitted. Acaagginéw, the petition o / summarily ciismissed. _ a j Sd/— R.S. Garg Judge H‘ Sdl— j" Chief Justice :i mew‘ r o h t't r n e r n r e s