2025:UHC:9788 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2877 of 2025 06 November, 2025 Vimal Prasad --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Mehta, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2024 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in P.P. Case No.40/2010 State Vs. Vimal Prasad (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition), whereby, Form ‘A’ notice dated 31.07.2010 issued against the petitioner under Section 4(1) read with Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, has been confirmed and he has been evicted from the government land he is in illegal possession of; as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Civil Case No.09 of 2025 Vimal Prasad Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition), whereby, the application/paper No.3C i.e. delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the appeal, has been rejected. 1 2025:UHC:9788 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of challani report dated 26.07.2010 under Section 4/5 P.P. Act produced by Patwari/Revenue Sub-Inspector, Patti Saneh, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal before the learned Tehsildar, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal with regard to encroachment over the government land, bearing Khet/Plot No.20(ka), admeasuring 0.0670 hectare, situated at Village Lalpani Palli, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, in which the petitioner has constructed a permanent house by blocking the public river/drainage/road; learned SDM/ Prescribed Authority, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal through Tehsildar, Kotdwar issued report/notice dated 26.07.2010 under Section 5 of Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against the petitioner. From perusal of Khatauni for fasli year 1367 issued on 28.09.2018, petitioner has been in possession over the land in-question since long according to the settlement of the year 1960. On the basis of aforesaid challani report, a case under Section 4/5 of the Act was registered as P.P. Case No.40 of 2010 State Vs. Vimal Prasad, before the learned Prescribed Authority/SDM, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, whereby, vide order dated 28.11.2024, Form ‘A’ notice dated 31.07.2010 issued against the petitioner under Section 4(1) read with Section 7 of the Act, which has been affirmed and the petitioner was directed to remove the illegal possession. 3. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an Appeal by challenging the judgment and order dated 28.11.2014 before learned Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. Along with the said appeal 2 2025:UHC:9788 petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit. The said appeal being time barred registered as Misc. Civil Case No.09 of 2025 Vimal Prasad Vs. State of Uttarakhand. The learned Appellate Court did not condone the delay and delay condonation application paper No.3C was rejected vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025, consequently the appeal was also dismissed. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court by challenging both the orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has illegally and arbitrary rejected the delay condonation application filed along with the memo of appeal. The learned Appellate Court has not considered the settled principle of law that the delay should not hamper the cause of justice. He also submits that the appeal preferred before the learned Appellate Court should be decided on merits as the valuable rights of petitioner are involved in the said appeal. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in preferring the appeal before the learned Appellate Court is only of 221 days and the said delay was not intentional or deliberate and the same has been occurred due to unavoidable circumstances, which is beyond the control of petitioner. This important aspect of the matter has not been considered while rejecting the delay condonation application filed along with the memo of appeal, hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Appellate Court is not on merits. 3 2025:UHC:9788 6. He further made an innocuous prayer before this Court that the ends of justice would be met if learned Appellate Court is directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after gone through the entire material available on record, this Court find substance in this submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The delay, according to the petitioner, was caused due to death of counsel appearing for the petitioner in the trial court and further due to illness of the petitioner. The cause shown by the petitioner appears to be sufficient enough to condone the delay caused in filing the Misc. Civil Appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2024 passed by learned Prescribed Authority, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. Thus, this Court is of the view to let the matter be decided on merits. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The application/paper No.3C filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby allowed. The delay of 221 days in filing the Misc. Civil Appeal is condoned. Let Misc. Civil Appeal be registered. Learned Appellate Court is directed to hear the Misc. Civil Appeal Vimal Prasad Vs. State of Uttarakhand, on merits. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.11.2025 PN 4