1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI \ £6 \ G ‘ WRIT PETITION (22” NO. - /2010 $‘mgm ‘3éms IN THE MATTER 0F: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 27 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA PEIITIONER/ AN APPELLANbax ‘L E. .. I /Yadav~{ Rom Sohu, Q. é 4: rpf.. §9aio $ » \ ......... S/o Shn Dauwo Ram Sohu, Aged aboyMO years, R/o Industrial Word, vg§”;¢¢w‘ .......... P.O. ~Dhomtori, “3&9” ......... District- Dhamtari (QGJ v VERsus y§P0NDENTs No.1/ gRESPONDENT N0. 1 I /1. The Estate Officer, South East Railway Managemenf Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Roipur, Chhottisgorh ESPONDENT NO.2/ x RESPONDENT NO. 2 /; Union of India, Through Chief Manager, i South East Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal, \ ‘ m . w. wag? m "K ..1.%? m mmmafaa WWW @IW %Wsné¥r Shri'v‘astava. J. u; the Pubiic Premises {Eviction of urraut‘r 01 17} ’\ I ) has been dismissed as barreé by I' Submission of learned cotmsel for SB : Hun’bie Shri Manindra Mohan 29-04-2010 Mr. Axum Singhal, counsek for the p‘ :titione Ms. Naushina Ali. counsei for re$ Shri Amit Chaudhari, standing counsel for By this petition, under Article 227 Regality and validity of order dated 18/03/20 9 r1n-p Learned counsei for the petitioner n of Kearned counsei for the petitioner is that ' 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation the order under Sub-Section 1 of Section 5 the order was passed by the Esiate Officer Section 5 of Suh-Seerion 1, only on 8/ limitation would commence only from 8/0? appeal was initially filed on 12/09/08 befor Judge Raipur vide its order dated 3/09/98 before the Dism'ct Judge, Dharntari wherea the District Judge, Dhamtari. The second though assuming that there was delay in tiiii application under Section 5 of the Limitatioi Court below was obliged to consider the 5a Learned counsel for the petitioner High Court in the case of Farma Nand 19%, 264. e respondent is that the perusai of impugned order would Show that the District Judge, R ipur' returned the appeal on 23/08i‘09 Whereat’ter \\. L ents on advance copy wider instructions from pondents. the constitution p I of india, petitioner has assaiied 0 by which the petitioner‘s appeal under Section orized occupants) Act, i971 (for short ” the Act iitati‘n. akes two fold submissions. The first submission view of the provisions contained tinder Section ’s to be reckoned from the date of pubiication of f the Act of i971. It is submitted that though 22/08/08, the same was affixed as required by 08. He therefore submits that the period of '08 and not before that, It is submitted that the the District Judge, Raipur bin later on District turned the appeal with iibeny to file the same efore ‘ ‘ the appeal, etitioner had also moved an Act, 1963, by way of abundant caution, lean-red m . ‘ «Ann no L e er the appeai was presented on m, y ou u etitioner - it. asuiep aiso reiied upon the judgment of Aiiaha’oad Vs, District Judge, Mirzapur and others. AIR “ 0 ‘ l S' s d ‘ mw,m, W1 mm 200 mwP§é§€>§N§§J m WW f§1irW mmmm .4,“ 37mm The appeal W45 flied before the learned Conn beiow after deiay of 2G davs anu J mermore x r appeal was nat fiied wimin the period of iimi mien prescxibed unda‘ the law. It is soBmitied that me finding of the learned Court below that the appea} was baned by limifati‘n does noi suffer from any error much iess an en‘or app arent on the record mo therefore tue L peddon é e is liabie to be dismissed. A pemsai of impugned order shows zhat while considering ae to whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation or not, learned Court below has compreteiy 1 1 misdirected itself. A bare perusal of Sectior. 9 of Sub-Section 2(a) shows that the appeal is requireo to be filed Within 12 days @‘om date of publication of the order under Sub- Section l of Section 5. However. in the entire order. the learned Court below while considering the case of the petitioner has cor puteci the period of limitation from the uate of passing of the order without taking into co ider-ation the stamtoiy provisions contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section ’2 (a) of the Act, 19 . the appeal was filed before the District Judge, Raipur. Later on, the séme was returned and presented before the Co" t below. This aspect was not taken into consideration Moreo , it appears that the petitioner, by way of abundant caution had moved an applieat imder Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, iir any, in tfiling the ap al. Though the impug1ed order records ‘L mat bL. tire aopeal is barred by limitation, there is consideration of petitioner’s appiieation for condonation of delay. The order does not z : ‘ The facts of the case are that iriitiai 7 flect that any of the gounds raised by the petitioner in the application for condonation deiay' were considered. The order does not show that any satisfaction has been recorded t the cause shown for deiay is not sufficient. in View of the above discussion, t impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is therefore set aside. Learned Court he ow shall reconsider the entire matter afresh, by taking into consideration the statutory provis of the Act and pass appropriate orders in acc'rdance with law. ?arties shah appem before l ns contained in Section 9 or" Sub-Section 2 (a) i the Additionai District Judge (are), Dimmer-i on io’h May mic ,4 aim.ii ,.. ,. .. séi- , ; ha‘n $hriVEist l G ‘ i i v r n‘ e f a h i.