Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

WPMS/1579/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 3366 UK

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3366 UK
Judgement Date : 27 June, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/1579/2025 on 27 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
                                                                                2025:UHC:5478
                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                         COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.            directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS/1579/2025
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Ankurit Raj David, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated against petitioner by issuing notice under Section 4(1) thereof. Petitioner entered appearance in the proceedings pending before Prescribed Authority, but he did not file any objection. Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar passed eviction order against the petitioner on 14.03.2024.

4. After more than a year, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act accompanied by a delay condonation application.

5. Learned Additional District Judge rejected the delay condonation application vide order dated 20.02.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:-

"i) Setting-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 14/03/2024 (Contained as Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar Garhwal in Public Premises Case No. 02/2013 "State V/s Maan Singh" U/s 4/5 of U P Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and 2025:UHC:5478 order dated 20/02/2025 (Contained as Annexure no. 2 to this writ petition) passed by Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District- Pauri Garhwal in Misc Civil Case No. 05/2025" Maan Singh V/s State of Uttarakhand" U/s 5 of the limitation Act."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Additional District Judge was not justified in rejecting the delay condonation application, as the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the cause shown by the petitioner for the delay was not sufficient, as petitioner participated in the proceedings before Prescribed Authority and he was also represented by a counsel, therefore, the stand taken by him that he was not aware about the eviction order passed by Prescribed Authority was not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned State Counsel supports the order passed by Appellate Court on petitioner's delay condonation application.

8. Learned Appellate Court has considered the cause shown by the petitioner for the delay and held that it is not sufficient for condoning the delay. It is held that petitioner's counsel cross- examined the revenue officials, who had submitted report against him before the Prescribed Authority in the year 2018, and thereafter petitioner did not participate in the proceedings; the Prescribed authority heard the matter ex-parte on 20.10.2022 & 04.1.2024 and passed the 2025:UHC:5478 eviction order on 25.01.2024, however, petitioner did not care to enquire about the said proceedings. It is further held that stand taken by petitioner that he learned about eviction order only on 25.01.2025 cannot be believed. Thus, learned Appellate Court inferred that petitioner was not diligent and the delay caused in the matter cannot be termed as beyond his control.

9. It is well settled that length of delay is not material, but the reasons stated therefor are material. The reasons adduced must be convincing and acceptable. The cause shown by the petitioner for the delay can hardly be said to be reasonable or satisfactory, therefore, learned Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay.

10. Since condonation of delay is discretionary and the reasons assigned by Appellate Court for refusing to exercise discretion are valid, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by learned Appellate Court while exercising supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

11. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.06.2025 Navin

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter