J.S.NARANG,J - (1.) IT has been averred that the petitioners were in possession of the property which became the subject matter for seeking eviction by the Improvement Trust, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust"). The Trust initiated the process of evicting the petitioners and that the petitioners filed a civil suit in the civil Court at Amritsar, which was finally decreed vide judgment and decree dated September 16, 1981. The permanent injunction was granted that the petitioners be not dispossessed from the property in dispute except in due course of law.
(2.) THE Trust initiated proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"). Despite service the petitioners did not appear and an ex parte order to evict the petitioners had been passed by the competent authority vide order dated July 26, 1982. The petitioners, being aggrieved of the ex parte order, filed C.W.P. No. 1540 of 1983 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners for filing an appeal permissible under Law. Resultantly, an appeal No. 105 of 1983 had been filed before the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The appeal has been dismissed vide a detailed order dated 14.11.1983, copy Annexure P-3. The orders of the Collector and that of the Commissioner, have been made the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. It has been categorically observed by the learned Commissioner that the appeal is patently and hopelessly time barred and therefore, merits dismissal. It has been noted that the order of the Collector is dated July 26, 1982 and the appeal had been filed on April 12, 1983. A copy of the order had been applied on February 8, 1983 and delivery thereof was taken on February 14, 1983. The copy was applied for after more than six months and after taking delivery of the copy, the appeal has been filed after about two months. It has also been noticed that the petitioners had been given due notice but despite service of the notice they did not appear before the learned Collector and, therefore, suffered ex parte proceedings and resultantly the ex parte order. It has also been observed that no application for seeking condonation of delay nor any affidavit had been filed specifically explaining the long and inordinate delay. Only oral submissions have been made that the petitioners had filed objections before the learned Collector and that an order dated January 11, 1983 had been passed by the Collector vide which the objections had been dismissed. It is obvious that instead of applying for the certified copy of the order of the Collector, the petitioners chose to file objections on January 11, 1983 which had been dismissed on that date and that copy of the order had been applied for thereafter on February 8, 1983. No explanation for such delay has been furnished. Thus, the cumulative delay has been taken as three months from the date of knowledge i.e. from January 11, 1983, the date of filing objections before the Collector.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners ought to have been heard on merit by the appellate authority and the principle of audi alteram partem should have been adhered to. It is further contended that the order of the learned Collector under the Act is illegal and is not sustainable. An order which is illegal and not sustainable need not be challenged. Thus, the question of limitation shall not arise.;