High Court · 2025

I n t hese pet it ions, pet it ioners have challenged t he order passed by Addit ional Com m issioner, Garhw al Division in Appeals filed under Sect ion 13 of I m posit ion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1960.

4. Since com m on quest ions of law and fact are involved in t hese writ pet it ions, t herefore t hey are heard t oget her and are being decided by a com m on j udgm ent . However, for t he sake of brevit y, fact s of Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 225 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed.

5. Pet it ioner has challenged t he order dat ed

18.11.2024 passed by Addit ional Com m issioner, Garhw al Division, Pauri in Ceiling Appeal No. 02 of 2023- 24. By t he said order, pet it ioner’s Appeal under Sect ion 13 of I m posit ion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1960 w as dism issed on t he ground of delay. Perusal of t he im pugned j udgm ent reveals t hat pet it ioner had challenged order dat ed 18.11.1993 passed by Prescribed Aut horit y under I m posit ion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1960, by filing an Appeal. The said Appeal was filed aft er t hirt y years in t he year 2023.

6. Learned Addit ional Com m issioner rej ect ed t he delay condonat ion applicat ion filed by pet it ioner by holding t hat t here is no explanat ion for t he delay caused in t he m at t er.

7. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat pet it ioner was not served w it h a not ice under Sect ion 10 ( 2) of t he aforesaid Act , t herefore, she was not aware about t he ceiling proceedings init iat ed against her and also t he final order passed by Prescribed Aut horit y in t he year 1993; pet it ioner when cam e t o know about t he order of Prescribed Aut horit y, t hen, she filed a w rit pet it ion before t his Court , which w as disposed of w it h libert y t o pet it ioner t o approach t he Appellat e Forum , and t hereaft er, pet it ioner Appeal in t erm s of t he order passed by Coordinat e Bench of t his Court , t herefore, t he delay of t hree m ont hs t hirt een days bet ween disposal of t he earlier writ pet it ion of t he pet it ioner by Coordinat e Bench and filing of t he Appeal, deserved t o be condoned.

8. Per cont ra, learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat t he subm ission m ade on behalf of t he pet it ioner t hat she was not aw are about passing of t he ceiling order is unbelievable, as im m ediat ely aft er t he order of ceiling passed by Prescribed Aut horit y, possession of t he land declared surplus, w as t ak en by t he St at e aut horit ies, howev er, pet it ioner slept over t he m at t er for 28 long years and only t hen she filed a writ pet it ion before Coordinat e Bench, and aft er disposal of t he writ pet it ion, she approached t he Appellat e Aut horit y by filing an Appeal. He furt her subm it s t hat it was incum bent upon t he pet it ioner t o give explanat ion for day - t o- day delay for t he ent ire period bet ween passing of t he ceiling order by Prescribed Aut horit y and dat e of filing of t he Appeal, however, she gave explanat ion only from t he dat e of decision in her earlier writ pet it ion and no explanat ion was offered by her for t he delay of about 28 long years, which had occurred bet ween passing of t he order by Prescribed Aut horit y and disposal of her earlier writ pet it ion.

9. Since an order passed in 1993 w as challenged in appeal in 2023, t herefore, pet it ioner was required t o explain t he delay for t his ent ire period, which, however, was not done by him and t he explanat ion he offered was only for about t hree m ont hs. Thus, t his Court does not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he order passed by Appellat e Aut horit y. Perusal of t he im pugned order reveals t hat pet it ioner did not file cert ified copy of t he order of Prescribed Aut horit y, which w as challenged in Appeal and t his was anot her ground for dism issal of his Appeal.

10. Sect ion 13( 1) of I m posit ion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act , 1960 prescribes lim it at ion of t hirt y days filing an Appeal before t he Com m issioner, t herefore, learned Appellat e Court right ly dism issed t he Appeal of t he pet it ioner, as it was filed aft er a long unexplained delay.

11. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference in t he m at t er. The writ pet it ions fail and are dism issed. Navin ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

25.02.2025