LAWS(UTN)-2016-5-4

KULAWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On May 17, 2016
Kulawant Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a rule, order or direction to set aside the order dated 05.02.2016, passed by the Commissioner Kumaun Region, Nainital, in Appeal 28/2013 -14 (New no. 161/2014 -15), in the Court of Commissioner, Kumaun Region, Nainital, Uttarakhand.

(2.) The facts giving rise to present writ petition are that the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Nainital for declaring his land free hold. The petitioner submitted a copy of challan of Rs. 3,000/ -, affidavit, tax receipt and copy of death certificate of his father. A recommendation for rejecting the application of the petitioner was made by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 22.06.2000. Neither the order rejecting the application of the petitioner was passed nor, copy of rejection order was supplied to the petitioner. Such rejection order came to the knowledge of petitioner on 25.07.2011 under the Right to Information Act. Being aggrieved against the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, in which, according to the petitioner, grounds for delay were explained in the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. During the pendency of appeal, the appellant / petitioner fell ill and, therefore, his appeal was dismissed in default. Thereafter, appellant / petitioner moved an application for restoration of appeal, which was dismissed by learned appellate authority vide order dated 05.02.2016, and hence present writ petition.

(3.) There was delay of 146 days in moving the restoration application (for restoring the appeal). Learned appellate authority passed an order to the effect that it would not be advisable to receive the documents, which were 15 years old, as there is every likelihood of committing forgery in such documents. Since there was delay of 15 years in filing the appeal, therefore, learned Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal citing that no ground for delay has been explained.