2025:UHC:466 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.110 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Proceeding under Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 were initiated against the petitioner, which resulted in passing of an eviction order dated 25.04.2024. Against the eviction order, petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 9 of the said Act. His Appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay by learned District Judge, Nainital vide judgment dated 30.11.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the judgment & order passed by learned District Judge in Misc. Application No.131 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay condonation application has been wrongly rejected, Prescribed Authority proceeded ex parte in the matter due to petitioner’s non appearance on a certain date, and petitioner was not aware about the order passed by Prescribed Authority until 24.10.2024, when the Halka Patwari informed him about passing of eviction order against him. He submits that appellant applied for certified copy of the eviction order, which was delivered to him on 28.10.2024 and soon thereafter 2025:UHC:466 he filed the appeal. Thus, he submits that the prayer for delay condonation made by petitioner deserved to be allowed and learned Court below has rejected the same by taking a hyper- technical view. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the application seeking condonation of delay, which is on record at page no. 41 of the writ petition. In the delay condonation application, petitioner has pleaded that he had engaged a counsel for appearing before the Prescribed Authority, who had assured him that he will summon the petitioner as and when required by the Prescribed Authority; due to COVID-19 Pandemic, petitioner lost track of the proceedings pending before Prescribed Authority and he also lost contact with his counsel and he was under the impression that his counsel would be pursuing the matter, however, on 24.10.2024 the Patwari informed him about passing of eviction order, and petitioner then came to Nainital on 26.10.2024 and applied for certified copy of the eviction order, which was delivered to him on 28.10.2024, and after drafting the Appeal, the same is filed in Court today. Thus, petitioner prayed that benefit of Section 5 Limitation Act be given to him and the Appeal be heard and decided on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 9(2) of Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Proviso to Section 9(2) of the aforesaid Act enables the Appellate Authority to entertain the Appeal after expiry of the limitation period if he satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from 2025:UHC:466 filing an appeal in time. For ready reference Section 9 (2) of the Act is extracted below:- “9. Appeals.-(1)......... (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred- (a)in the case of an appeal from an order under Section 5, within fifteen days from the date of publication of the order under sub-section (1) of that section; and (b)in the case of an appeal from an order under Section 7, within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant: Provided that the Appellate Officer may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.” 6. Learned Appellate Court has rejected the delay condonation application by holding that sufficient cause has not been shown for the delay caused in filing the appeal. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is revealed that the past conduct of the petitioner of not pursuing the matter diligently in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority has been made the basis for rejecting his prayer for delay condonation. In his application, petitioner has indicated the reasons for his non appearance before the Prescribed Authority. 7. Even otherwise also, lack of diligence on the part of petitioner in pursuing the matter before the Prescribed Authority cannot be a good ground for rejecting his prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The explanation for the delay offered by the petitioner that he came to know about eviction order only on 24.10.2024 and certified copy of the eviction order 2025:UHC:466 was delivered on 28.10.2024, appears to be sufficient for condonation of delay. 8. Law is well settled that while considering prayer for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice oriented approach has to be adopted. Since Prescribed Authority has ordered for petitioner’s eviction from the land in question, therefore, he would not get any benefit out of the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, in the absence of objection filed by the State, the cause shown by the petitioner cannot be disbelieved. Lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the matter before the Prescribed Authority cannot be a valid ground for rejecting his delay condonation application. 9. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed; impugned judgment dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned District Judge is quashed and the delay condonation application filed by the petitioner stands allowed. The Appeal filed by the petitioner shall stand restored to the file of learned District Judge, who shall decide the Appeal on merits. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.01.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048 5365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9 D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CE A66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.01.13 11:16:55 +05'30'