' The petitioners moved an application for ejectment of Miraj Din respondent No, 2 which was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 14th January, 1981. Miraj Din went in appeal before the Collector but the appeal was dismissed on 17th May, 1981. He has, however, been successful in revision petition before the Additional Commissioner who on 21st July, 1981 has set aside, the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that he decided the case after the statutory period of 60 days. The Additional Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector to decide the case afresh.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No, 12010 of 1980 in support of his contention that even if the order of the Assistant Collector is passed after the. Expiry of 60 days the order does not become a nullity and that the prejudice, if any, caused on account of this delay will be deemed to have been remedied as the \question was agitated in appeal before the Collector who otherwise would have heard the case on transfer from the Court of the Assistant Collector on the expiry of sixty days. The order of the High Court in the abovementioned writ petition was challenged in the Supreme Court and as reported in 1981 SCMR 1171. Leave was refused by the Supreme Court in that case.
2. I have no reason to disagree with the opinion expressed in Writ Petition No, 12010 of 1980.
Therefore, the observation of the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 21st June, 1981 that the order of the Assistant Collector was without jurisdiction cannot be supported. It is, however, pertinent to notice that the Additional Commissioner while remanding the case to the Collector had declined to decide the case on merits. The revision petition before the Additional Commissioner will therefore be deemed to be still pending. The case is remanded to the Additional Commissioner again for decision on merits.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.