RAJ RANI Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Land Acquisition Officer exercising the powers of the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, vide order dated April 26, 1990 directed the eviction of the petitioner from Tenement No. 2250, Sector 37, Chandigarh. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal. This was barred by limitation. Vide order dated March 12, 1991, the Learned District Judge condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. However, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on the premises that the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant had made a statement to that effect.

(2.) Mr. Gian Chand Dhanda, Advocate has filed an affidavit stating that after the condonation of delay and the admission of the appeal by the learned District Judge, I did not make any statement for the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn on the instructions of the client Smt. Raj Rani. Smt. Raj Rani did not ask me to withdraw her appeal."

(3.) It is undoubtedly correct that at the end of the order of the learned District Judge, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition, the statement of Mr. Gian Chand Dhanda, appears to have been recorded. The learned counsel states that he may have signed this statement under some mistake.