LAWS(ALL)-1988-5-22

PARMA NAND SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MIRZAPUR

Decided On May 10, 1988
PARMA NAND SINGH Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT JUDGE, MIRZAPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgement of the Distt. Judge, Mirzapur dt. 12-1-1987 in Miscellaneous Case No. 78 of 1985, Parma Nand Singh v. Union of India and the Defence Estate Officer, whereby the petitioner's application for condonation of delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act in preferring the appeal under S.9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has been dismissed and ultimately the appeal has also been dismissed as barred by time.

(2.) The Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the appellate Court has patently erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act. According to him the learned Judge has wrongly observed that no provision for definite mode of publication was provided under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, he has arrived at a patently erroneous conclusion. In this connection our attention has been invited to the provisions of S.5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 which reads as below :- "Eviction of unauthorised occupants :- (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under S.4 and any evidence produced by him in support of t he same and after personal hearing, if any, given under Cl.(b) of Sub-S. (2) of S.4, the Estate Officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises."

(3.) It has also been contended that the learned District Judge has patently erred in distinguishing the cases cited before him on a flimsy ground.