2025:UHC:7529 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1449 of 2023 22 August, 2025 Shri Gurmeet Singh --Petitioner Versus Shri Mahendra Pal Singh --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Deepak Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shubhr Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent (appeared through V.C.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital in Revision No.106 of 2021- 22, Mahendra Pal Singh vs. Gurmeet Singh. 2. According to the petitioner, the facts of the petition begun from the series of facts that one late Bakhtawar Singh was a recorded tenure holder of the land in-question situated in Kaladungi, District Nainital in Fasli Year 1380-1385. According to him, the name of respondent and one Kuldeep Singh were wrongly entered in Category 9 on the aforesaid land. The respondent and Kuldeep Singh are the grandsons of late Bakhtawar Singh. On Coming to know about this fact, Bakhtawar Singh moved an application under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Bhawar, Haldwani, District Nainital 2025:UHC:7529 2 which was registered as Revenue Suit No.25/2023 of 1977-1978. The aforesaid suit was allowed by Assistant Collector by his order dated 27.02.1978 and the name of respondent and Kuldeep Singh were expunged from the revenue records. Since then, litigation is going on between the parties. The crux of the matter is the order dated 13.08.2014 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class in the aforesaid case. By the said order, the name of respondent was again expunged from the concerned land. Assailing the said order dated 13.08.2014, the revision was preferred before the Commissioner on 26.09.2022, meaning thereby, there was a delay of eight years in filing the revision. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also produced. Challenging the said order, present writ petition has been filed. 3. I have perused the order dated 28.09.2022. By the said order, the delay in filing the revision preferred by respondent has been condoned. The revision has also been admitted. However, it is admitted fact that no liberty to rebut or to file objection was given to the petitioner- tenure holder to file his objection either to the delay condonation application. Equity demands that sufficient opportunity to challenge the delay condonation application must be given to the other party before condoning the delay condonation application or admitting the revision which has admittedly not been done in the present case. It is settled that delay cannot be condoned without issuing notice to the other party. 4. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that gross injustice has been caused to the petitioner. Without issuing notice to the petitioner-respondent on the delay condonation application, the delay condonation application has been allowed and the interim order has 2025:UHC:7529 3 been passed in favour of the respondent-revisionist. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.09.2022, passed by learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital in Revision No.106 of 2021-22, Mahendra Pal Singh vs. Gurmeet Singh, is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital to hear the parties afresh after issuing notice to them on the delay condonation application and the revision and then to pass further orders in the matter in accordance with law. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 22.08.2025 AK