Judgment :- A.R. Lakshmanan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of C. S. Rajan, J. dated 3.1.1998 in O.P. No. 21378/98 refusing to interfere with Exts. P4 and P5 notices. The learned judge has directed the appellant/ petitioner to agitate the legality of Exts. P4 and P5 in the civil suit filed by the appellant in O.S.638/98. We are of the opinion that the direction given by the learned single judge directing the appellant to agitate his rights before a civil forum is not correct. 2. Under S.15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises is barred. We are of the opinion that proceedings for eviction and the orders passed thereon has to be challenged only under the Act and not in ordinary court of law. This apart the Estate Officer is not a court and the Limitation Act does not apply and jurisdiction of civil court is entirely barred in matters governed by 1971 Act. The inquiry by the Estate Officer under the Act is amenable to the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. The Estate Officer under Act is competent to record a finding on a question of title also. His findings become final if affirmed on appeal by the appellate authority and a suit to challenge them is not competent. We are therefore, of the view that the direction given by the learned single judge to approach the civil court is against the provisions of the very Act itself. In the instant case, as already noticed, during the pendency of the Original Petition the Estate Officer has passed an order on 5.11.98 which has now been filed as annexure- V along with the memo filed by the counsel for the appellant in the Writ Appeal. The order was passed after the disposal of the Original Petition and before the filing of the Writ Appeal. The order was passed after the disposal of the Original Petition and before the filing of the Writ Appeal. The order says that the Estate Officer, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-s.(1) of S.5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has ordered that the appellant and all persons who may be in occupation of the said premises or any part thereof to vacate the said premises within 15 days of the date of publication of the said order and in the event of refusal of failure to comply with the order within the specified period the appellant and all other persons concerned are liable to be evicted from the premises in question if need be by the use of such force as may be necessary. 3. S.9 provides for an appeal against an order passed by the Estate Officer. An appeal under S.9 shall He from every order of the Estate Officer made in respect of any public premises to an appellate officer who shall be the District Judge of the District in which the public premises are situated or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years' standing as the District Judge may designate in this behalf. The order in question has been conferred on him under sub-s.(1) of S.5 of the Act. Under such circumstances an appeal under sub-s.(1) of S.9 shall be preferred in the case of an appeal from an order under S.5 within twelve days from the date of publication of the order under sub-s.(1) of S.5 of the Act. In the instant case the appeal has to be preferred against the order of the Estate Officer under S.9(2) of the Act within the time stipulated. However the appellant/ petitioner without availing the statutory remedy provided under the Act has been agitating the cause in this forum. Therefore, it is for the appellant to move the appellate authority and file the appeal as provided under the Act along within the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal by giving reasons for his inability to file the appeal in time. Therefore, it is for the appellant to move the appellate authority and file the appeal as provided under the Act along within the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal by giving reasons for his inability to file the appeal in time. If such an appeal and the petition is filed it is for the appellate authority to consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and also consider any application made by the appellant herein to stay the enforcement of the order passed by the Estate Officer for such period and on such condition as he deems fit. We therefore, permit the appellant to approach the appellate authority and pursue the matter. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.