UMA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that proceedings under Sec. 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, were initiated against the petitioner by District Collector, Solan, which were decided in favour of the petitioner on 11/7/2014. An appeal was filed before Divisional Commissioner, Shimla by respondent against order dtd. 11/7/2014, passed by District Collector, Solan, registered as Revenue Appeal No. 202/2020. Since, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, an application under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, read with Sec. 64 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms, Act, was also filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Divisional Commissioner allowed the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act filed by respondent, vide order dtd. 21/10/2021. Petitioner herein, assailed the said order in Revision Petition before Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order dtd. 26/11/2021.

(3.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 21. 10.2021, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Annexure P-4 in RevenueAppeal No. 202/2020 and order dated 26. 11.2021, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh in Appeal No. 02/2021. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned orders are against all canons of law. There was no justification for condonation of delay, still the Divisional Commissioner allowed the application by a non speaking and cryptic order. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh also failed to pass the order within the fourwalls of law. The impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, is the result of surmises and conjectures. It has not been appreciated that no credible reason, whatsoever, was assigned for huge delay that had occurred in filing the appeal, still the undue benefit was allowed in favour of the respondent by way of impugned orders.