IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘ITISGARH’KT BILASPUR wan PETITION (227) NOQGE) /2o1o Singm @gmi IN THE MATTER OF: P TITIONER/ APPELLANT / Shonkar Loho @ Dinesh Mahcvar S/o Shri Radheshyam Mahavor Aged about 48 years, R/o Industrial Ward, P.O. -Dhomtari, District— Dham‘rari (C;G.) VER$US h wn RESPONDENTS No.1 / RESPONDENT NO. 1 /l’. The South Estate Eos’r Officer, Rollway Management Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh y_ A#A Ae a REsPONDENT NO.2/ RESPONDENT NO. 2 {/24 Union of Inaia, Through Chief Manager, South Eas’r Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkafa, Wes’r Bengal, v/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan é °°~M=291e MI. Ankit Singhal, counsel for the peu Ms. Naushina Ali, comsel for respom Shri Amit Chaudhari, standing caunsel for reS} By this petition, under Article 227 of 1 legality and validity of order dated 18/03/201C 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unaulho; of 1971 ") has been Ciismissed as batted by limi Learned counsel for the petitioner of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation is the order under Sub-Sermon 1 of Section 5 o the order was passed by the Estate Officer on Section 5 of Sub-Section 1, only on 8/O9 limitation would commence only horn 8/69/0 and not before that. It is submitted that the appeal was initially filed on 12/09/08 before Judge, Raipur vide its order dated 23/09/03 before the District Judge, Dhamtari whereafte r he appeal, as the petitioner had also moved an ct, 1963, by way of abundant caution, learned &u~u-r twnéf. lents on advance copy under mstmctlons from landents. he coniitution of India, petitioner has assailed by which the petitionefs appeal under Section 'ized occuparm) Act, 1971 (for shon: " the Act tation. s two fold submissions. ”the first submissim ‘eW of the provisions contained under Section to be reckoned from the date of publication of the Act of l97l. It is submitted that though 2/08/68, the same was affixed as required by He therefore submits that the period of District Judge, Raipur bm ister on District d the appeal with "oerty to file the sm‘ie the appeal Was presented on 24/09/08 before the Dietrict Judge, Dhamtari. The :s'econd su" mission of learned counsel for the petitione though assuming that there was delay in tiiing application under Section 5 of the Limitation l l Court below was obliged to consider the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner High Court in the case of Farma Nand Singh 1988, 254, Submission of learned counsel for th respondent is that the perusal of impugned “\\‘ order would show that the District Judge, Raippr returned the appeal on 23/08/«39 Whereaher l.._. also relied upon the judgment of Allahabad V's. District Judge, Mirzapur and others, AIR 1 e m f r i- e e / the appeal Wa$ filed before the learned Court below after delay of 20 days and therefore appeal was not illed wxthm the penod 0t hnntdtmn prescriued Under the law It 1's aubmitted that the hndmg of the learned Couxt below thJt the appeal wa§ barred by lmutanon does not suffer &om any error much less an error appai ent an the recerd and therefore the petition 1a liable m be dismissed A perusal of impugned order shows tl'at While considering as ta Wherher the appeal o was filed within the period of limitation not, iearned Court below has completely misdirected itself. A bare perusal of Section of Sub-Section 2(a) shows that the appeal is required to be filed within 12 days from the date of publication of the order under Sub- tire order, the learned Court helow while Section 1 of Section 5. However, in the considering the case of the petitioner has com uted the period of limitation from the date of passing of the order without taking into consi eration the statutory provisions contained in Seotron 9 oi SubSectlon 2 (a) ofthe Act, 1971 T’ie facts of the case are that mmally e appeal was uled before the Dismct Judge ourt belowr This aspect it appears that the petitioner, by way of abtmda‘nt caution, had moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the appea . Though the impugied order records that the appeal is barred by limitation, there is no onsideration of petitioners application for eondonation of delay. The order does not r fleet that any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application for eondonation o delay were considered. The order does not show that any satisfaction has been recorded th the cause shown for delay is not sufficient i Raipur. Later on, the same was returned and ented berore the o was not taken into consideration Moreov In View of the above discussion, the npugned order cannot be sustained and the same is therefore set aside. Learned Court belo shall reconsider the entire matter afresh, by taking into consideration the statutory provisio contained in Slection 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) ice with law. Parties shail appear before ‘ on io‘h May, 2010.//// of the Act and pass appropriate orders in acco e Additional District Judge (F.T.C._), Dham 0mm l i~._ ‘ i s e