The High Court held that a petition challenging an Estate Officer's order under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, is not maintainable since the appeal lies with the District Judge under Section 9.
Petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to approach appropriate forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~17
..... Petitioner Through Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Adv.
versus
THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS
..... Respondents Through Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Ms Akshita Manocha and Mr. Harshit Manaktala, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 18.07.2016
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The appellate body of an order passed by the Estate Officer is admittedly the District Judge. Appeal is maintainable under Section 9 of the said Act.
This petition is not maintainable. Dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JULY 18, 2016 A
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an order of the Estate Officer is maintainable when the appellate remedy lies with the District Judge.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SHARVAN KUMAR
THE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
INDERMEET KAUR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
