LAKHI RAM Vs. DISTT JUDGE TEHRI GARHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Against the order dated 30-9-1980 passed in Revenue case No. 4 of 1979 by the Prescribed Authority in the proceedings under U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Oc cupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), Misc. Appeal No. 62 of 1980 was preferred by the petitioner. By an order dated 9-3-1981 the said appeal was dis missed on two grounds, namely: first, the appeal was premature and in the absence of publication of the order dated 30-9-1980 it was not maintainable. Secondly, it was held that prima facie the appeal ap pears to be barred by time.

(2.) THIS order has been challenged by means of this writ petition. Mr. L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the reason given in the order is wholly misconceived. In as much as there is no provision for publica tion of the order under Section 5 (1) of the Act, therefore, the appeal cannot be premature and if it is not premature, in that event it could not have been dismissed on the grounds that it was barred by limita tion. According to the learned counsel, the two propositions cannot go together. Secondly, Mr. Naithani contended that the appeal was filed within time and there was no decision on the question as to how the appeal was time barred. According to him when the Court has come to the finding that it is time barred, in that event the Court ought to have given reasons so as to enable this Court to appreciate the reason ing given by the appellate authority.

(3.) IN paragraph 7 of the writ petition, following statement has been made: "that the petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment and order, dated 30-8-1980 in the Court of the District Judge Tehri Garhwal. "