SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Raj) 261

RAJESH BALIA
Amar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
L.R. Mehta, for Petitioner J.P. Joshi, for Respondents

Honble BALIA, J.—This revision arises out of an order passed by District Judge, Churu as Appellate Officer, under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 rejecting the petitioners appeal against the order passed by the Estate Officer on 21.4.84 directing the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed public premises under section 5(1) of the Act of. 1971.

(2). The Appellate Officer has held the appeal to be barred by time on the ground that the order under section 5(1) was made on 21.4.84. Under section 9 of the Act appeal has to be filed within 12 days. The appeal was presented on 2.1.88. The notice of order.....was issued in the name of petitioner was served on him and there was no sufficient cause for the petitioner to have filed the appeal in 1988 long after expiry of period of limitation.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Appellate Officer has over-looked the provisions of section 9 of the Act of 1971 and has proceeded on assumption that the starting point of limitation for filing from the date of order the appeal is the date of order. If the appeal is not filed within 12 days from the date of order the same cannot b
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top