9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 60 days - In this case, the appeals were filed beyond the period of 60 days, i.e., the appeals were filed on 81st day after the service of the order. The Tribunal, Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court were right in dismissing the appeals as being barred by limitation holding that there was no sufficient cause in filing the appeals beyond the period of limitation and that the Tribunal did not have power to condone the delay beyond 60 days - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - CIVIL APPEAL NO.4252 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.34261 of 2012], CIVIL APPEAL NO.4253 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.34647 of 2012] - - - Dated:- 20-4-2018 - R. K. Agrawal And Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. JUDGMENT Abha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as prescribed under SAFEMA. However, if the appeal is filed beyond the period of 45 days then on sufficient cause being shown, the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal only up to 60 days but not beyond the period of 60 days. 8) In this case, the appeals were filed beyond the period of 60 days, i.e., the appeals were filed on 81st day after the service of the order. The appellants, therefore, filed application for condonation of delay in the appeals alleging therein that there was a sufficient cause in filing the appeals beyond the period of limitation. 9) The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as being barred by time. In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that even, according to the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, we find no merit in the appeals. 15) In our opinion, when even according to the appellants, the orders impugned in the appeals before the Tribunal were served on them on 29/30th July 1998, then in such event, the question as to the manner in which the service was effected and whether it was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 22 of SAFEMA has no significance and really does not arise for consideration. 16) We, however, consider it apposite to reproduce Para 3 of the impugned judgment for perusal: Some facts would be necessary to decide these appeals. The competent authority under SAFEMA passed an order dated 14.07.1998 for forfeiture of several properties under Section 7 of SAFEMA. The common appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or not and whether the service on the appellants minor daughter was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 22 of SAFEMA or not. 18) If the appellants had the knowledge of the order passed against them and which they admit to have as per their own admission mentioned above, pursuant to which they filed appeals, then in our opinion, so called irregularity in the manner of effecting the service of the order on them etc. was of no consequence and cannot be termed as illegal per se (if found to exist though denied by the Revenue). 19) In the light of the foregoing discussion, the decisions cited by learned senior counsel in Kuntesh Gupta Dr.(Smt.) vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur(U.P.) Ors., 1987 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
