2025:UHC:1317 SL. No. Da te Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 225 of 2025 with WPMS No. 226 of 2025 WPMS No. 229 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal and Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, Advocates for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari & Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. 3. In these petitions, petitioners have challenged the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division in Appeals filed under Section 13 of Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 4. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 225 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed. 5. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri in Ceiling Appeal No. 02 of 2023-24. By the said order, petitioner’s Appeal under Section 13 of Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was dismissed on the ground of delay. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that petitioner had challenged order dated 18.11.1993 passed by Prescribed Authority under Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, by filing an 2025:UHC:1317 Appeal. The said Appeal was filed after thirty years in the year 2023. 6. Learned Additional Commissioner rejected the delay condonation application filed by petitioner by holding that there is no explanation for the delay caused in the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not served with a notice under Section 10 (2) of the aforesaid Act, therefore, she was not aware about the ceiling proceedings initiated against her and also the final order passed by Prescribed Authority in the year 1993; petitioner when came to know about the order of Prescribed Authority, then, she filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the Appellate Forum, and thereafter, petitioner filed Appeal in terms of the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, the delay of three months thirteen days between disposal of the earlier writ petition of the petitioner by Coordinate Bench and filing of the Appeal, deserved to be condoned. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that she was not aware about passing of the ceiling order is unbelievable, as immediately after the order of ceiling passed by Prescribed Authority, possession of the land declared surplus, was taken by the State authorities, however, petitioner slept over the matter for 28 long years and only then she filed a writ petition before Coordinate Bench, and after disposal of the writ petition, she approached the Appellate Authority by filing an Appeal. He further submits that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to give 2025:UHC:1317 explanation for day-to-day delay for the entire period between passing of the ceiling order by Prescribed Authority and date of filing of the Appeal, however, she gave explanation only from the date of decision in her earlier writ petition and no explanation was offered by her for the delay of about 28 long years, which had occurred between passing of the order by Prescribed Authority and disposal of her earlier writ petition. 9. Since an order passed in 1993 was challenged in appeal in 2023, therefore, petitioner was required to explain the delay for this entire period, which, however, was not done by him and the explanation he offered was only for about three months. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by Appellate Authority. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that petitioner did not file certified copy of the order of Prescribed Authority, which was challenged in Appeal and this was another ground for dismissal of his Appeal. 10. Section 13(1) of Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 prescribes limitation of thirty days for filing an Appeal before the Commissioner, therefore, learned Appellate Court rightly dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner, as it was filed after a long unexplained delay. 11. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.02.2025 Navin