SHANKAR LOHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(CHH)-2003-3-7
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on March 31,2003

Shankar Loha Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

FAKHRUDDIN, J. - (1.)This order shall also dispose of the following civil revisions - (1) C.R. No. 774/2001 (Abdul Gaffar v. Union of India Anr.), (2) C.R. No. 775 (D.N. Dama v. Union of India and Anr.), (3) C.R. No. 776/2001 (Suresh Rathi v. Union of India and Anr.), (4) C.R. No. 777/2001 (Arun Kumar Kashyap v. Union of India and Anr.), (5) C.R. No. 778/2001 (Raj Kumar v. Union of India Anr.), (6) C.R. No. 779/2001 (Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India Anr.), (7) C.R. No. 780/2001 (Sadram v. Union of India and Anr.), (8) C.R. No. 781 (Hukul Lal v. Union of India Anr.), (9) C.R. No. 782/2001 (Om Singh Thakur v. Union of India and Anr.), (10) 783/2001 (Narmada Parsed v. Union of India and Anr.), (11) C.R. 784/2001 (Nakcheduram and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.), (12) C.R. 785/2001 (Yogendra Singh Chhabra v. Union of India and Anr.), (13) C.R. 786/2001 (Raj Kumar Poptani v. Union of India and Anr.), (14) C.R. 787/2001 (Ratanlal Dayaram Agtrawal v. Union of India and Ors.), (15) C.R. 788/2001 (Onkar v. Union of India Anr.), (16) C.R. 789/01 (Hariram Mahavar v. Union of India Anr.), (17) C.R. No. 790/01 (Indrajeet Singh v. Union of India and Anr.), (18) C.R. No. 791/01 (Gyan Chandra v. Union of India and Anr.), (19) C.R. No. 792/01 (Satish Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.), (20) C.R. No. 793 (Murli Manohar v. Union of India and Anr.), (21) C.R. 794/2001 (Jahur Ahmed v. Union of India and Anr.), (22) C.R. No. 795/01 (Sirajuddin v. Union of India and Anr.), (23) C.R. No. 796/01 (Chintaram v. Union of India and Anr.), (24) C.R. No. 797 (Ajay Kumar v. Union of India Anr.), (25) C.R. No. 798/01 (Yadav Ram Sahu v. Union of India and Anr.), (26) C.R. No. 799/01 (Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Union of India and Anr.) as the common question is involved.
(2.)This revision has been filed against the Order 31-7-2001 where by the lower appellate Court remanded the matter to the Estate Officer.
(3.)Briefly stated facts are that the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railways, Bilaspur Division served notice that the Applicant is an unauthorized occupant of Railway Property. Reply was filed. Evidence was adduced and parties were heard. Eviction order was passed on 24-1 -2000. The Applicant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 before the District Judge. The notices of appeal were served on Railways. Certain documents were filed on behalf of the Railways showing that the land in question is of the Railway property. Copies supplied. The Applicants disputed the claim. The lower appellate Court in impugned order noted that the notice which has to be issued under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which reads in Hindi as follows: ??? ????? ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... 1971", but while translating the same in Hindi version, it has been mentioned as ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... It was noted that there was mistake in the title of the notice.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.