JUDGMENT 1. - Matter has come up from the defect side, as there is a delay of 35-days in filing this special appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.09.2007 by which the writ petition against the appellate order passed by the learned District Judge in exercise of the appellate powers under the Public Premises [Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants] Act 1971 (Central Act 40 of 1971) (herein after to be referred as the Act of 1971) was passed on 17th May, 2004 against the order of the Estate Officer passed on 25.06.2001. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the matter before examining the matter for condoning the delay. 3. So far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, we have gone through the appellate order passed by the learned District Judge against the order of the Estate Officer as SAW No.127/2008 well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is doing the business of selling 'Prashaad Samagri' etc. , at the temple of 'Lord- Ganesha' in Ranthambhore Fort at Sawai Madhopur. The Ranthambhore Fort is a cent rally protected monument of national importance, as held by the learned District Judge based upon the evidence produced on record as notified under the Archaeological Survey of India and, therefore, is a public premises. The petitioner is not doing the aforesaid business in any building or immovable property, but as has been recorded by the Commissioner in his report dated 19.03.2001, which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the petitioner is doing the business on two slabs 5' in length and 21/2' x 21/2' in width. 5. The relevant portion of the report of the Commissioner reads as follows : " ;g fd fooknxzLr LFky ftls layXu uD'ks esa ABCD ekdZ ls fn[kk;k gS oknh pkSFkey ds nks r[rs gS ftudh yEckbZ 5 QqV gS rFkk pkSM+kbZ 2&1@2 & 2&1@2 QqV gSA bl izdkj fooknxzLr LFky dh dqy yEckbZ pkSM+kbZ yxHkx 5 x 5 QqV gSA bl ij cSBdj oknh izlkn cspus dk dk;Z djrk gS ij oDr ekSdk fujh{k.k oknh izlkn cspus dk dk;Z dj jgk FkkA ;g fooknxzLr LFky Vhys ij ekStwn gSA " 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 are attracted to the case, inasmuch as, notice was required to be given before any order of removal or dispossession could be passed. 7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and we find that the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 are only attracted in cases of "building or any immovable structure or fixture, which has been erected" as against movables such as the 2 slabs on which the petitioner sits and vends his items. 8. In the light of the Commissioner report, which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition two slabs on which the petitioner is said to be doing his business of selling 'Prashaad Samagri' cannot fall within the aforesaid categories of properties enumerated under Sub- section 2 of Section 5-A of the Act, 1971. Moreover, the petitioner was sought to be removed in 1981 when he filed a suit and got initially injunction, but the same was later-on dismissed and then the petitioner filed the writ petition, which was dismissed in 2007, but despite there being no interim order in this appeal, which is in defect the petitioner has continued in possession for over 30-years since he was sought to be evicted. 9. We find no merit in this appeal. 10. Consequently, the appeal, the stay application as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stand dismissed.Application appeal dismissed. *******